Mondoweiss thinks  Goldberg is “panicked” by the death throes of the two-state solution. To me the piece–and its extraordinary length–illuminate that unrealistic discourse about the region that permeates the liberal Washington policy culture. Maybe its the same thing.

Goldberg and Ibish’s analysis of the root of current diplomatic impasse in the region is balanced to the point of unreality.

Some contend that the Palestinian Authority, which governs parts of the West Bank, is ineffectual or illegitimate. Some say the asymmetry of power between Israel and the Palestinians is simply too great for a genuine compromise. Some insist the conflict is driven by unabated anti-Semitic incitement on the part of the Palestinians, or by irredeemable Israeli racism.

All of these statements are individually true and only the last will offend the custodians of capital legitimacy. Yet the collective truth, that most Israelis live in peace and prosperity while all Palestinians live under a web of racially discriminatory, undemocratic laws enforced by a brutal military occupation, does not quite penetrate the gloss of the authors’ fairmindedness.

Goldberg and Ibish issue a call for what they call “joint unilateralism,” that is, independent efforts by each side to persuade the other that compromise is necessary. Their timing is not deft. The Palestine Papers document what happens when the Palestinians make unilateral concessions: the Israelis pocket them and the Palestinians wind up farther from a peace agreement than ever. Goldberg and Ibish dodge the revelations of new documents while wishing that the negotiators for the two sides shared their own good intentions. Its a happy thought that seems willfully naive under the circumstances.

Is their article a species of the alleged narcissism of liberal Zionism? I don’t think so, because I think most liberal Zionists feel more tsouris than optimism right now. In any case, the sociology of motive (not my favorite enterprise)  does not explain to me why two experienced Middle East journo-wonks would avoid current political realities so assiduously.

I think Goldberg and Ibish write this way because there is hardly any other discourse about the Middle East in Washington news rooms and policy shops. The  Washington writer who does not accept the “peace process” premise; who does not articulate a balanced assessment of the two sides; and who does not voice “cautious optimism” has practically read him or herself out of the discussion, at least as it is conducted at traditional news organizations. The independent voices of the policy blogosphere–Steve Clemons and Stephen Walt–lack the institutional power that is needed to propagate ideas and message in a media democracy.

So as the political reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict becomes more intractable, about the only rational response–within the limited frame of the Washington policy debate–is to wish for “good news” designed to shore up faith in its increasingly dubious premises. Whistle while you pass the graveyard of the two-state solution, and all your troubles will feel better.

Note what does not seem to qualify as “good news” for Goldberg and Ibish at this moment: people power in Tunis and Cairo. They never mention the popular discontent against U.S.-backed dictatorships in the region as a factor in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Why? Because in Washington policy circles, expressions of Arab democracy are bad news: bad news for nervous Hillary Clinton; bad news for the Mubaraks seeking to extend their dynasty; bad news for Israelis worrying about their best Arab ally; and bad for the “peace process” that binds them together in ineffective diplomacy.

So let’s talk about the “good news” instead.

Nasrallah says Hezbollah will hit Tel Aviv airport if Lebanon is attacked.

There is an element of bluff in this. Hezbollah’s ability to take the battle so deep into Israeli territory is questionable. More likely, this is an in-kind response to Hillary Clinton’s pressurizing on Iran (understood among U.S. foes as a pro-Israeli position) that should not be underestimated. The Hezbollah leader’s ability to wage asymmetrical warfare to advance his group’s political agenda is proven. There’s not much doubt that Hezbollah’s position in Lebanon and the region is stronger today than it was before its 2006 mini-war with Israel.

Plus: WOS surveys Middle East reaction to Hilary’s most forceful intervention yet on the issue of Iran.

I expect some to suggest that this fact discredits Joseph Massad’s take on the Palestinian predicament, as published by Al-Ahram. I don’t think so. Yes, Al-Ahram operates within some ideological red lines–that’s true of the Washington Post too. The site is an essential read in the English-speaking Arab world, just as the Post is in Washington. And Massad is hardly apologizing for Mubarak, who, after all, is the U.S. government’s most essential ally in the region.

It is an ingenius, if not ingenuous, argument, because it depends on pretending as if the repressive nature of the Egyptian regime–with all of it limitations on independent political parties, journalists and bloggers, not to mention torture and secret trials—-serves the interests of Israeli and American policymakers more than it advances the interests of say, the Palestinians in Gaza.

Bottom line, says the Eygpt Daily News: the initiative has to come from the United States.

Manuel Zelaya, the man who did everything imaginable to undo the coup that threw him out of the palace, may have inadvertently signed his political death certificate when he agreed to a US-mediated accord that opened the way for his return to him power, albeit with diminished powers.