Is it change we can believe in, or just the sputterings of overly hopeful tea leaf readers on the cusp of a long overdue administration switch? I think it’s too early to say, but at least people are being more upfront about the situation we find ourselves mired in with regard to the Israeli Occupation.

From Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski:

Resolution of the Palestinian issue would have a positive impact on the region. It would liberate Arab governments to support U.S. leadership in dealing with regional problems, as they did before the Iraq invasion. It would dissipate much of the appeal of Hezbollah and Hamas, dependent as it is on the Palestinians’ plight. It would change the region’s psychological climate, putting Iran back on the defensive and putting a stop to its swagger.

The major elements of an agreement are well known. A key element in any new initiative would be for the U.S. president to declare publicly what, in the view of this country, the basic parameters of a fair and enduring peace ought to be. These should contain four principal elements: 1967 borders, with minor, reciprocal and agreed-upon modifications; compensation in lieu of the right of return for Palestinian refugees; Jerusalem as real home to two capitals; and a nonmilitarized Palestinian state.

It should also be pointed out that Obama is reaching out to the Scowcroft circle for foreign policy input. He’s tapped people like Richard Lugar, Richard Haas, indicated he’ll retain Robert Gates, and of course got Colin Powell’s endorsement. All of those guys share Scowcroft’s general pragmatic worldview.