What do Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and former U.S. President Bill Clinton have in common? Not much one might guess, and this is generally true. But when one examines their careers closely one would be surprised that the two lame-duck leaders attempted in the few weeks before they left office to resolve once and for all the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

A statement by the retiring Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has provoked a shock reaction in Israel and restrained joy among Arabs. "I am saying what no previous Israeli leader has ever said: we should withdraw from almost all of the territories, including East Jerusalem and in the Golan Heights," Olmert said in an interview to the Yediot Ahronot on the eve of the Jewish New Year.

This month marked 15 years since the signing of the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles on the South Lawn of the White House, launching the Oslo process and a new hope for the Middle East. The anniversary was largely ignored, overshadowed by the latest rounds of political uncertainty and upheaval in both Israel (where the ruling Kadima party elected Tzipi Livni its new leader) and in the Palestinian territories. Indeed there was little cause for fanfare or celebration. The latest incarnation of Oslo, the Annapolis effort, is sputtering toward another unrealized peace deadline, the end of 2008.

JERUSALEM -- In an unprecedented warning, Israels domestic intelligence agency, the Shin Bet has warned of new attacks carried out by Palestinians, who are Israeli residents from within the 1967 borders, as well as the rising threat of Jewish terrorism.

Okay. The Israeli-Palestinian peace talks are getting nowhere fast. Some experts are starting to say that maybe its time to look at the future of Palestine with a completely set of new lenses. The paradox in the comatose peace negotiations is that although the details calling for a two-state solution are generally accepted by all sides, a solution is not truly desired by either the Palestinians or the Israelis for various reasons. See the Sept. 15 issue of the Middle East Times

There is a new Israeli prime minister and the U.S. government is virtually bankrupt: Many people across the Middle East are happy at both developments for very understandable reasons, but we should be careful about what we wish for. And we need to understand how the two developments affect each other.

JERUSALEM – Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, the newly elected leader of Israels ruling Kadima party, began negotiations last Friday to form a new cabinet following her narrow win in the party primaries over closest rival Shaul Mofaz.

The indirect negotiations between Syria and Israel that began last May have gone as far as they can. Their purpose -- to break the ice between the two states after eight years of not talking, and to test one anothers resolve over certain issues -- has been achieved. Now, Syrian President Bashar Assad wants to move forward, as evidenced in his proposal to Israel for direct peace talks at a recent four-way summit in Damascus involving Syria, Turkey, France and Qatar.

Few would argue that the indirect Israel-Syria talks through Turkish mediation, which were first announced on May 21, were a sign of political maturity and readiness for peace. In fact, while the discussions seemed concerned with the occupied Syrian Golan Heights and Israels desire for security at its northern borders, the true objective behind the sudden engagement of Syria is largely concerned with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.

JERUSALEM -- Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has lifted hopes about possible face-to-face peace talks with Israel following French President Nicolas Sarkozys visit to Damascus last week.