David Remick's 'New Yorker' editorial on Israel: A man, a plan Israel, a Palestinian state, and Obama

Have we missed something? The US recently cast a veto killing a resolution condemning Israel for building settlements illegally on Palestinian territory which it seized during the 1967 war 44 years ago.
Now in an very prestigious, influential, and widely read [especially among the US elite] weekly magazine of long vintage 'The New Yorker', seasoned journaalist David Remick has 'dared' to question the 'bona fides' of Netenyahu's role in the Israel Palestinian peace process, as well as revealing, on one hand, the vacuity of Obama's advisors approach to the matter and on the other, the hidden but heated and bubbling debate with the administration on Israel at a time when US policy in the Middle East is crumbling and without a Plan B or C or D.
The times call for new thinking and bold measures. Netenyahu's stalling and US diplomacy proving once more inadequate to meet current challenges, the Obama administration has to take courage and daring into its own hands to bring forth a new plan for a Palestinian state which would do justice to Palestinian aspiration without sacrificing Israel in its pre 1967 borders.
Although Remick does not say much, the deconstructed text of his 'editorial' implies that message.
As it is, and as GuamDiary has observed, what is obvious to even a one eyed man, US policy is Israelicentric. As the unsettling events in the Arab world is showing that approach is self defeating. Remick expresses the vigorous debate within the White House over protecting Israel from censure in the UN Security Council, which the US did recently. This action did not win it 'brownie points' even among Israelis who view Obama with a jaundiced eye. Only the US canned the resolution which the other 14members of Council voted for its passage.
Time is running out for taking on its shoulders the consequences of indefensible Israeli policies towards the Palestinians.
Remick only mentions Dennis Ross by name for his ploddling gradualist approach to birthing a Palestinian state. He might also have indicted Martin Indyk, former US ambassador to Israel, serving as Special Envoy to the Middle East, who, when push comes to shove, will put Israel's needs before the crying conditions of the Palestinians, who are daily robbed of their land, their water rights, their dignity, and civil and human rights by the Zionist state.
Remick even goes one step further by calling on Obama to brave the catcalls and smears of AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] which has become an albatross on the neck of US Middle East policy.
In all, Remick's piece is remarkable in that he has 'dared' to bell the Israeli cat and its glaring drag on US interests and policies. Remick suggests, and he is probably right, that by slapping Netenyahu hard on the knuckles and making life more and more difficult for the AIPAC lobby to 'control' US policy, Obama could make a breakthrough in the changing environment in the Middle East.
It is equally significant that it is not in 'The New Yorker' and nor in the 'New York Times' or the 'Washington Post', but in a more 'up market' weekly which is read by the elite in and out of government. Why now? Well the answer is clear: the hand writing is on the wall and if the US does not act in its own interests, it will lose out in the Middle East. Washington needn't worry too much about Israel which it subsidised handily, but it does have to count worry beads that it is losing its strong hand of influence in that region.
So, through Remick, dissatisfied elements in America's ruling circles are signally that it is time to redirect US away from its Israeli centric axis to a more even hand neutral approach, guaranteeing justice for the Palestinians and welcoming the democratic change sweeping the Arab world.
Is the timing of Remick's article too late? That remains an open question.