Like many US presidents before him, George W. Bush is taking the exact same path.

During most of his first and second term, they are pro-Israel and pretty hawkish when it comes to the Middle East. For example, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, attempted to redefine "occupied territories" in 2002, by calling them "so-called occupied territories", contrary to UN resolutions and internationa law.

Now, in his last year in office, Bush is hoping to seal a Middle East peace plan before the end of his term. Moreover, he is calling for "and end of the occupation that started in 1967". Similarly Condoleezza Rice is calling Israel's plan for East Jerusalem "a settlement".

The recurring plan here is that knowing that he does not have to face voters again, he can make decisions that are contrary to lobby groups and pressure groups.

Many a US president has done exactly the same: start with a hawkish policy on the Middle East pandering to pro-Israel lobbyists, only to soften up then take a more just approach in his last year, and hopes for that "permanent solution" to seal his legacy. Many a US president would go on to take a pro-Palestinian stance later.

Problem is, that elusive peace never happens that fast, specially while a US election is underway ...

Meanwhile, the cycle continues, as Mearsheimer and Walt lament how presidential candidates offer blind support for Israel. Let us see in 4 (or 8) years whether the new president will follow the same pattern.