Call For Settlement Freeze Reflects Growing American Attitudes - New York Times

Well, it seems that pigs do indeed, fly. The usually myopic Thomas Friedman seems to have shaken off some of his tunnel vision when it comes to at least one issue pertaining to Israel. In his recent New York Times editorial on settlements, Friedman blasts the Israeli stance on this thorny subject: "For years, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the pro-Israel lobby, rather than urging Israel to halt this corrosive process, used their influence to mindlessly protect Israel from U.S. pressure on this issue and to dissuade American officials and diplomats from speaking out against settlements. Everyone in Washington knows this, and a lot of people — people who care about Israel — are sick of it."

Strong words indeed from this once knee-jerk supporter of all things Israel. Looks like the tide is turning in DC. Wonder if the dam will break and Obama and Co will do a "James Baker" eventually on the settlement issue. Former US Secretary of State Baker once said that there was “no greater obstacle to peace” than Israel’s settlements. During testimony at a Congressional hearing in 1990, he recited the number of the White House switchboard, saying that the Israelis could call it if they were interested in making peace.

The whole world sits across the aisle from Israel on this one - but they are all waiting for the US to say the magic words: "Stop or we will cut off your aid." Hey, if pigs are flying, even hell could freeze over...

Then Friedman ruins it by veering off the issue. He urges a moratorium on settlements as a trade for Arab-Israeli normalization. Try the land for peace formula, bozo. And the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or receive just compensation. And throw in Jerusalem too. Sheesh. You give Friedman an inch and he tries to sell you a bridge.

Saudis Give Nod to Israeli Raid on Iran - The Sunday Times

Here we go... That coven of Iran-nuclear-drumbeaters that consist of Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are off again. Israel's Mossad and other senior politicians have apparently been in secret talks with Saudi officials about gaining access to their airspace in the event that Israel decides to launch attacks on Iran's alleged nuclear sites.

I often wonder if there is ever any attempt at injecting some plain old common sense into this debate. If - and this is a big "if" - Iran actually ever gains nuclear weapons capability and decides against all logic to launch a warhead into Israeli territory...does it occur to the coven that amongst the many victims of nuclear fallout will be scores of Muslims? Palestinians, including Iranian ally Hamas; Lebanese, including Iran's dearest regional pal Hezbollah; Syrians, close partners of the Islamic Republic? Israel ain't that big, and any nuclear attack will affect friends and foes alike.

But the wardrums will continue because - nay - there is no common sense here. Just political posturing and distraction tactics to avert global attention away from the mind-numbing inability of these three US allies to strike a Palestinian peace deal, tackle real democracy and lead the region to a better future.

Their days are numbered as Mideast powerbrokers, and they are scrambling to make themselves relevant by creating bogeymen where they don't exist.

Don't you just love that the same guy who is taking these secret meetings with the Saudis just announced a few weeks ago that Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons has just been moved to 2014? Meir Dagan, Mossad's chief for the past seven years, took away all sense of urgency by his latest proclamation, which incidentally now matches the CIA's estimate for an Iranian weapons program. So, then what's with all the talk of air raids through Saudi airspace? Perhaps they just need something to take the heat off that pesky issue of illegal settlements and peace with Palestinians. Or maybe they're more worried these days about Americans and Europeans getting all warm and fuzzy about Iranians - now that post-election events in the Islamic Republic have blown a hole through the Iranian stereotype and revealed a country that is politically and culturally diverse, and seems to take its democracy more seriously than most in the region. That must surely scare the pants off some Saudis.

Israel's Settlements are on Shaky Ground - LA Times

Sarah Leah Whitson in the LA Times: "The debate over Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories is often framed in terms of whether they should be "frozen" or allowed to grow "naturally." But that is akin to asking whether a thief should be allowed merely to keep his ill-gotten gains or steal some more."

Want to Stop Israeli Settlements? Follow the Dollars - Washington Post

Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory have long been considered illegal by the international community. US President Obama's recent demands that Israel cease all settlement activity reflect diverging interests amongst the two allies. After all, peace plans will go nowhere until Israel shows serious intent, and the settlement issue has emerged as the first major test of wills.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is playing games to see what he can get away with, and it's time to do a "James Baker" on this slick dick. An old 1979 State Department legal ruling determined that Israeli settlement-building in occupied Palestinian territory "is inconsistent with international law." Like the Bush-style offensive of clamping down on US-Muslim groups that send funds to supposedly dodgy end-users in the Mideast, the Obama administration can invoke the 1979 ruling as gospel, and chase down any and all US groups that send funds to aid Israel's settlements.

Hey - if we are serious about pushing through an Israel-Palestine peace deal with a final settlement, we have to wean Israel off decades of mollycoddling so that they sit up straight and understand we mean business. Make it illegal to aid West Bank and Jerusalem settlement activities, and watch things grind to a halt. It doesn't even have to be too confrontational - get the UN Security Council to do it...and this time sit on our veto.