Margolis, I think, carries matters a step too far, but his statements can't be dismissed out of hand.
Going back as far as WW2, the Western powers have pursued a policy of stability for the Middle East, regardless of the oppressive regimes of some and the expansionist desires of others.
Israel has been looked upon as the regional enforcer, keeping the region stabile with its large military and control of the only atomic arsenal.
Israel, with the support of the West, uses its threatening stance to keep the region from developing independent, viable, growing economies with peoples becoming democratized and demanding of equality.
The west also fails to see that Israel is slowly expanding into the west bank, a step forward, half a step back, and that they will never allow a viable Palestinian state.

Peter K. and Steve Shaw's statements I largely agree with, but I have the hope, perhaps mis-guided, that the western powers will wake up and re-direct their billions to development rather than to military purposes used for stability through suppression.

Iran is making an effort to grow and become a counter to Israel; the West has no coherent plan to cope with another strong power in the region except to squeeze it into compliance.

The western powers have all done little more than encourage Mubarak to step down (but leaving the same systems in place under new names) and to give the people placebos.

This may prove to be Obama's worst failure historically; failure to support more liberal regimes although giving lip-service to the idea of democracy. His (and the other western leaders) inaction here could lead to bloodshed rather than to reform.