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.

Did anyone notice Mossad's new outlook on an Iran bomb? - The Daily Star

Mossad chief Meir Dagan just contradicted Israel's intelligence community by claiming that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon in hand until 2014. Israelis have been extending this mystical date since the late 1990s, with the most recent scenario of Iran's readiness to launch a warhead being...2009/10. We are all either idiots who will readily believe whatever drivel Israel throws our way - or their intelligence is fundamentally and consistently flawed. Either way, we should no longer be inclined to pay any attention to Israel's beating of war drums over Iran's nuclear program. Hell, I could probably take an educated guess about the Islamic Republic's nuclear agenda and beat the Israeli intelligence community by a mile.

Dagan's announcement has placed Israeli PM Benjamin Netahyahu in a bind, however. The peace-averse Israeli leader was counting on the Iran nuclear threat to divert attention from any real progress toward a two-state solution and his continued support of illegal settlement activity in occupied Palestinian lands. Now that the head of Mossad has thrown a spanner in the works, what will Netanhayu's next step be? There is clearly no impending threat from an Islamic Republic that not only has no nukes in hand, but is also mired in post-election unrest that will necessitate a heavy domestic focus for the forseeable future. Netanyahu is as cunning as they come, and his next manufactured distraction will undoubtedly be as entertaining as it is false.

The Trick When Talking to Iran - LA Times

The Obama adminsitration is going to try to open negotiations with Iran come what may - "talking" to foes is part of their core values. And Iran's nuclear program is item number one on their agenda. Whether their negotiating partner is Khamenei-Ahmadinejad or a new reformist government doesn't fundamentally matter.

"We do not believe that talking is a reward for good behavior, or that not talking is a good punishment for bad behavior. We've seen what comes from not talking. In 2001, Iran had zero [nuclear enrichment] centrifuges; now they have more than 5,000, and maybe more than 7,000. Not talking wasn't a particularly useful thing."

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.

US Misunderstanding on Iran Lingers - Asia Times

For thirty years, the US has had very little contact with Iran. American policymakers have consistently opted for slogans versus substance, so that today there are few impartial Iran specialists in government, few Farsi speakers in the intelligence community, and therefore a crippling inability to assess what is happening on the street and behind closed doors in Iran. Yet American politicians are still braying for blood and demanding Obama follow their lead. They know less than nothing and are being driven by partisan politics and the same old cabal of interest groups that has driven US policy toward the Middle East into the ground.