From last night’s Fox News All-Stars.

On Fox’s interview with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

Re: Iran’s nuclear program:

Well, you notice how he wouldn’t talk directly or even indirectly, even hint about an Israeli strike. That is radioactive. They will not talk about it in public. They won’t even speak about it in private.
Obviously that’s on their minds. They have made training exercises. They can do it. It is a question of how effective it would be.
But what I found interesting in his response to your questions, Bret, is that there was actually an ounce of sincerity in talking about sanctions.
I have no faith in them and I’m not sure they would work at all. But I think what Netanyahu might be assuming is if there were real sanctions — and that would mean a gasoline cutoff, that’s where the Iranian regime is really vulnerable — if there were an embargo on gasoline that would essentially shut down the Iranian economy. [And] given the fact that there have been disturbances — there has been a quasi-revolution in the street, there is really unrest and widespread resistance to the government — it might catalyze a change in the country.
I don’t think they [the Israelis] imagine that sanctions alone would change the mind of the current regime about developing nukes, not at all. But perhaps they think on a kind of a three-cushion shot that if you had real sanctions, economic shutdown, and unrest, that could change the regime and perhaps change the policy. Otherwise, Israel strikes….
I think people imagine that there is one clock ticking. There are two. One clock is Iran’s developing enough uranium, highly enriched, to produce the bomb. That would be one trigger.
The other is if the Russians send the anti-aircraft missiles, which would essentially make it near impossible for Israel to attack in the future, that would also trigger an Israeli attack before it [the deployment] would happen. Otherwise it [Israel] is helpless in the face of an Iranian nuclear bomb.
I think there’s one other issue here at stake. And that was the subtext that Obama and Netanyahu did not discuss, but he [Netanyahu] has been sorely disappointed.
I thought that after his first meeting with Obama earlier in the year, the understanding was that the U.S. would require a serious and positive response from Iran on the U.S. demand of the nuclear issue by mid-September.
Well, mid-September has come and gone and the Iranians have essentially spit in our face with a proposal which is not anywhere near what is needed, and yet we are negotiating still. So he’s [Netanyahu] worried that there is any hard line deadline the U.S. would impose.
It doesn’t look like there is.

Re: Prospects for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations:

The hurdle [insisting on an Israeli settlement freeze] was a self-inflicted wound by the Obama administration. It was so amateurish, it is quite astonishing.
Apart from the merits of the settlement issue, it’s absurd to insert a precondition on Israel, as Obama did, given the fact that for 15 years Israelis and Palestinians have negotiated in the absence of a settlement freeze.
It happened for eight years under Yasser Arafat. It happened under Ehud Olmert and Abbas. The negotiations between Olmert and Abbas continued up to the eve of the Obama inauguration without any preconditions.
And then all of a sudden Obama is in office. He establishes a precondition of Israeli settlement freeze, and the Palestinians say, wow, this is a gift. We are going to accept it. We’re not going to accept anything until Israel caves.
And that’s why you have had an eight-month hiatus, entirely unnecessary. And now that Obama is relenting on that apparently — and it looks like the Palestinians as well — we can now start negotiations again.