When US Tomahawk missiles and fighter jets began their bombardment of Syria, it felt strange. Foreigners bombing a sovereign Arab country without the approval of its leadership produced few signs of public discontent.
And, for the first time in decades, a war is taking place in the Middle East without the issue of Palestine having any relevance.
In previous wars, Palestine was always present. When George Bush Sr. led a coalition against Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, the Iraqi leader attacked Israel with Scud missiles.
When his son invaded Iraq, the US and UK made verbal promises about the need to solve the Palestinian problem, and tried to follow it with diplomacy.
In the first instance, the US' persistent effort produced the Madrid Conference and later the Oslo Accords.
In the second US-led war on Iraq, no political breakthrough was recorded. Although US diplomats, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, spent many hours shuttling between Ramallah and Israel little change was recorded.
This time around, the war has occurred after exhaustive effort by Washington, but none of the five Arab coalition partners appears to have made progress on the Palestine issue, a condition for its participation in the air strikes and for participating in the anti-IS coalition.
This war is being waged on Syrian land, without its permission, but is not directed against the regime, but against groups fighting on its territory.
While the war against the group calling itself the Islamic State is not popular, there is no love lost for the Islamic group that is beheading its opponents and shattering centuries of diversity and tolerance in the Arab world.
Unlike the previous wars in which Washington was an enthusiastic leader which needed an Arab coalition to support it, this time around, the Obama administration is being dragged into this war.
Arab countries led by Saudi Arabia were unable to leverage regional issues, such as Palestine, to agree to join the US-led coalition.
President Barack Obama has been extremely reluctant to execute any attacks, and the last-minute coalition building appears to have required little energy from the US.
Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries are extremely worried about the existential threat IS presents and, therefore, have little clout to be able to make demands to the US in regard to Palestine.
Palestinian disunity, although suspended for a short time during the recent war on Gaza, also contributed to the lack of Arab pressure on the US to demand a stronger attempt at influencing the US vis-à-vis Israel.
The relation between the US and Israel has soured ever since the collapse of the nine-month Palestinian-Israeli talks.
There is no love lost between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And with November mid-term US elections fast approaching, the Democratic party leader is unlikely to risk taking an unpopular stand that can mean his party losing the US Senate in the coming elections.
The lack of US involvement is not a bad thing. If Washington's absence from the Palestinian-Israeli scene also means that America might not automatically support Israel in every case, then it might be welcomed.
While many Palestinians and their supporters want the US to press Israel to adhere to international law and end its occupation, many would be happy if the US just stops protecting Israel in international forums, especially the UN Security Council.
The absence of a serious US desire to give Palestine priority is putting more pressure on the Palestinian leadership to take a befitting position.
President Mahmoud Abbas's initiative reflects this in many ways. By giving priority to the borders of the state of Palestine and its need to be recognized, the Palestinian president seems to focus on the big picture.
Abbas' threat that he will go to the UN if the US refuses to recognize Palestine and his asking that the UN Security Council recognize Palestine on the 1967 borders will certainly put Washington in a difficult position.
Will Washington use the veto at a time it is trying to keep and increase its anti-IS coalition?
Will Obama do what previous presidents did and protect Israel from the international community at a time when Israeli officials are routinely speaking badly about the US?
The Arab states that joined the US in the recent coalition against IS will be under a lot of pressure not to give support to Washington if it vetoes any resolution that aims to make justice for the Palestinians.
Palestine might not have been part of the deal in the current coalition, but this quickly formed coalition will become quite shaky if the US will act in the UN Security Council as it does when there is no coalition with five Arab countries.
And, for the first time in decades, a war is taking place in the Middle East without the issue of Palestine having any relevance.
In previous wars, Palestine was always present. When George Bush Sr. led a coalition against Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, the Iraqi leader attacked Israel with Scud missiles.
When his son invaded Iraq, the US and UK made verbal promises about the need to solve the Palestinian problem, and tried to follow it with diplomacy.
In the first instance, the US' persistent effort produced the Madrid Conference and later the Oslo Accords.
In the second US-led war on Iraq, no political breakthrough was recorded. Although US diplomats, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, spent many hours shuttling between Ramallah and Israel little change was recorded.
This time around, the war has occurred after exhaustive effort by Washington, but none of the five Arab coalition partners appears to have made progress on the Palestine issue, a condition for its participation in the air strikes and for participating in the anti-IS coalition.
This war is being waged on Syrian land, without its permission, but is not directed against the regime, but against groups fighting on its territory.
While the war against the group calling itself the Islamic State is not popular, there is no love lost for the Islamic group that is beheading its opponents and shattering centuries of diversity and tolerance in the Arab world.
Unlike the previous wars in which Washington was an enthusiastic leader which needed an Arab coalition to support it, this time around, the Obama administration is being dragged into this war.
Arab countries led by Saudi Arabia were unable to leverage regional issues, such as Palestine, to agree to join the US-led coalition.
President Barack Obama has been extremely reluctant to execute any attacks, and the last-minute coalition building appears to have required little energy from the US.
Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries are extremely worried about the existential threat IS presents and, therefore, have little clout to be able to make demands to the US in regard to Palestine.
Palestinian disunity, although suspended for a short time during the recent war on Gaza, also contributed to the lack of Arab pressure on the US to demand a stronger attempt at influencing the US vis-à-vis Israel.
The relation between the US and Israel has soured ever since the collapse of the nine-month Palestinian-Israeli talks.
There is no love lost between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And with November mid-term US elections fast approaching, the Democratic party leader is unlikely to risk taking an unpopular stand that can mean his party losing the US Senate in the coming elections.
The lack of US involvement is not a bad thing. If Washington's absence from the Palestinian-Israeli scene also means that America might not automatically support Israel in every case, then it might be welcomed.
While many Palestinians and their supporters want the US to press Israel to adhere to international law and end its occupation, many would be happy if the US just stops protecting Israel in international forums, especially the UN Security Council.
The absence of a serious US desire to give Palestine priority is putting more pressure on the Palestinian leadership to take a befitting position.
President Mahmoud Abbas's initiative reflects this in many ways. By giving priority to the borders of the state of Palestine and its need to be recognized, the Palestinian president seems to focus on the big picture.
Abbas' threat that he will go to the UN if the US refuses to recognize Palestine and his asking that the UN Security Council recognize Palestine on the 1967 borders will certainly put Washington in a difficult position.
Will Washington use the veto at a time it is trying to keep and increase its anti-IS coalition?
Will Obama do what previous presidents did and protect Israel from the international community at a time when Israeli officials are routinely speaking badly about the US?
The Arab states that joined the US in the recent coalition against IS will be under a lot of pressure not to give support to Washington if it vetoes any resolution that aims to make justice for the Palestinians.
Palestine might not have been part of the deal in the current coalition, but this quickly formed coalition will become quite shaky if the US will act in the UN Security Council as it does when there is no coalition with five Arab countries.