The ultimate reaction on our part is that you seal the borders and let them starve, but of course that's impossible.

Broadly speaking, what we've seen sends a message to the international community, to the Palestinians and to Israelis, that more is possible, whether by agreement (with the Palestinians) or not by agreement.

[Israelis are still reeling from their own Nixon-goes-to-China moment.] No other politician had the toughness and the determination to do what he did in the face of the kind of opposition and criticism he faced, ... He's a tough guy.

In the name of participatory democracy, President George W. Bush's Arab reform policies are actively enfranchising radical Islamist parties with armed militias: in Iraq, where they form the government; in Lebanon, where Hezbollah now holds government ministries; and now, potentially, in Palestine,

It's a revolutionary situation. This the first time that the Muslim Brotherhood or any Islamic group has been elected to run an Arab polity, and there are no real precedents. Are we looking at a hardcore movement that may make some tactical gestures but remains totally committed to destroying Israel and transforming Palestinian society, or are they pragmatists and will change these beliefs?

In order to move the Israelis and Palestinians into an agreement on something, you need the big guns from the administration, the ones who can speak for the president, to twist arms, ... I would hope that Rice would get an appetite for this and want to come back.