Admit Palestine to the UN? Sounds like a good idea

Well, why not? It is a nation. And, Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas makes a good case. But, several issues abound.

First, the U..S. will use the Fatah-Hamas rapproachment to fight against this idea.

Second, Abbas ignores that Jordan took over the West Bank in 1948. True, it relinquished its legal claims in the 1990s, but it illustrates that the Palestinians have often been the red-headed stepchild of the Arab world. And, theoretically, if Jordan hadn't acted as it did, maybe Palestine could have been (it should have been) admitted along with Israel in the first place.

Anyway, if it did happen now, it would be fun to see Bibi Netanyahu shitting a few bricks.

Why Afghan-Taliban negotiations will likely fail

The idea sounds nice:

But, there's two main holdups.

One's mentioned in the article. We, standing behind Afghan President Hamid Karzai, want the Taliban to finger bin Laden's location. That's just not happening.

The second? The Taliban wants a timetable for our withdrawal. That's certainly not happening.

Our Vietnam?

A better analogy would be: Our Palestine, our West Bank.

Bush-Israel had backdoor settlements deal

News of the fact that the Bush Administration had an unannounced deal with Ariel Sharon, negotiated by (shock me) neocon Elliott Abrams, to allow some Israeli settlements to continue to be built in the West Bank, is surely going to up Bibi Netanyahu’s intransigence level with Barack Obama.

Muammar Qaddafi as Middle East sage?

Well, the New York Times thinks enough of the idea to give him column space, where he, interestingly, advocates a “one-state solution” for Israel/Palestine.

Won’t fly.

Palestinians will reject it based on recent West Bank history. Israel will reject it based on future demographics fears. Still, it’s a decent column. Give it a read.

Newsweek tells Obama to get tougher with Israel

Hmm, maybe the "Israel rules" are losing a bit of their bite with the MSM. Aaron David Miller gets down to brass tacks pretty early:

Despite efforts to sound reassuring during the campaign, the new administration will have to be tough, much tougher than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush were, if it's serious about Arab-Israeli peacemaking.

Miller then says that, without ignoring the various transgressions of Hamas, Obama will have to deal more with Israeli actions on the ground. He says legitimiate punishment of Hamas can't be used to crush Palestinian economic development. He next says Obama needs to do more than previous presidents on the West Bank settlements issue.

Read the full story for more of Miller's thoughts.

Israel gives Carter cold shoulder but no security

In what is being described as unprecendented, Israel’s Shin Bet is refusing to cooperate with former U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s Secret Service detail. Why?

Because he’s visiting Hamas leaders. The cold shoulder has gone so far as for Israel to lie and claim Carter never asked for any help from Shin Bet.

As for Hamas being committed to the destruction of Israel, well … not exactly, as M.J. Rosenberg notes:

Even Khaled Mashal, the Syria-based political chief of Hamas, said this week that “Palestinians have adopted a joint position regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state within the borders of 1967.” The Arab Initiative (the Saudi-sponsored plan endorsed by every Arab country) not only recognizes Israel’s right to the 78 percent of Palestine that is Israel but pledges full recognition and normalization of relations if Palestinians are permitted to establish a state in the other 22 percent.

I don’t think it gets much clearer than that. In case it doesn’t, Rosenberg explains that West Bank settlements by Israelis, with the concomitant checkpoints, etc., fragment what’s left of that “22 percent” into microparcels.

Obama and Clinton, like McCain, though, will continue to cut blank checks to Tel Aviv.