Thomas Friedman of the New York Times just cannot leave Israel alone. Even in a column written about the Republicans fighting with the Democrats and issues like nuclear arms, clean energy and economic growth, Friedman has to spend the opening paragraph blasting Israel for not taking such simple steps that would advance peace efforts.

Thomas Friedman writes:

Where to begin? Well, first there’s Israel’s prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, who has been telling everyone how committed he is to peace with the Palestinians while refusing to halt settlement building as a prerequisite for negotiations. At a time when Israel already has 300,000 settlers in the West Bank, Bibi says he can’t possibly take another pause in building to test whether the Palestinian government of President Mahmoud Abbas — a man Israelis say is the best Palestinian security partner Israel has ever had — can forge a safe two-state deal for Israel. The U.S. is now basically trying to bribe Bibi to reverse his position. Maybe he will, but it’s unseemly to watch and doesn’t bode well. Rather than take the initiative and say to Arabs and Palestinians, “You want a settlement freeze? Here it is, now let’s see what you’re ready to agree to,” Netanyahu toys with President Obama, makes Israel look like it wants land more than peace and risks never forging a West Bank deal — thereby permanently absorbing its 2.5 million Palestinians and eventually no longer having a Jewish majority. That’s the sudden stop at the end — unless the next war comes first. But, for now, Bibi seems to think he can fly.

"Well, first there’s Israel’s prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, who has been telling everyone how committed he is to peace with the Palestinians while refusing to halt settlement building as a prerequisite for negotiations."

Refusing to halt settlement building as a prerequisite for negotiations??!!?? What is he talking about? We did it for 10 months and it led to nothing! Aside from all the other arguments against renewing the freeze, why does he insist on ignoring the fact that we already did this and the Palestinians did not step forward?

You can talk about the need to do it again, and justify it with all sorts of reasons and expectation why a second, shorter, commitment might work when the original did not, but to talk as if we refuse to do something so simple and basic, when we already did just that, despite it being anything simple and basic is just ignoring reality.