Yesterday, LiberalOasis flagged the calls from Lebanese PM Fouad Siniora to get an end to hostilities by resolving the Shebaa Farms dispute.

Chances are you won't find out about it from any US media outlet, but there may be significant developments on the Shebaa Farms front.

According to today's The Guardian, the Israeli government is keeping withdrawal from Shebaa Farms on the table:

Israel has also signalled its readiness to surrender the 25sq km of the Shebaa Farms ... That would strengthen the Lebanese government and undermine Hizbullah's claim to be resisting Israeli "occupation".

And Ha'aretz columnist Zvi Bar'el reports that Hezbollah may be shifting its Shebaa strategy:

...Energy Minister Mohammed Fneish, a Hezbollah representative, announced that once [Israel] withdrew from the Shaba Farms area, Hezbollah's role as a 'liberating' army would be over, and it would stick to a purely a defensive role.

This is a very significant statement, because it begins to define the conditions for Hezbollah's disarmament.

As LO contended yesterday, Hezbollah abducted Israeli soldiers in part to provoke Israel and thwart a potential Shebaa Farms deal, precisely because Israeli withdrawal would undermine Hezbollah's legitmacy as an armed resistance.

Now Hezbollah may be relenting, though it's also possible that Bar'el is overinterpreting Fniesh's comment.

In fact, another Ha'aretz news story, on Condi Rice's brief Lebanon visit, painted a somewhat contradictory portrait.

It noted that "Hezbollah's de facto negotiator" in Lebanon's parliament gave Condi a proposal for "a two-phased plan. First would come a cease-fire and negotiations for a prisoner swap. Then an inter-Lebanese dialogue would work out a solution to the situation in south Lebanon... ."

Putting a prisoner exchange first and foremost, as opposed to Shebaa Farms withdrawal, is in line with Hezbollah's strategy to date: to keep land issues unresolved and maintain its armed posture.

Still, any shift in language by a key figure, such as a cabinet official like Fneish, is a diplomatic opportunity to exploit.

Another area where the two Ha'aretz pieces seemingly contradict is the US position on Shebaa Farms.

Bar'el's optimistic column says: "The government of Lebanon, Hezbollah, the United States, France and the United Nations have all realized now that the key to achieving a long-term and sustainable cease-fire by means of the deployment of the Lebanese Army in the south lies in a resolution to the Shaba Farms dispute," leaving only Syria as the major player yet to be on board.

But Bar'el doesn't say how it is known that the US is board, and the other Ha'aretz article more plausibly indicates that it isn't:

The United States has insisted that no cease-fire can take place without dealing what it calls the root cause of the violence - Hezbollah's domination of the south along the Israeli border ...

... In a sign of the differences between the U.S. and Lebanon, Siniora presented his own package for a permanent solution...

... a "swift cease-fire," to be followed an over-all solution guaranteeing the return of Lebanese prisoners held by Israel, Israel's withdrawal from the Shaba Farms ... and a provision on minefields lain in south Lebanon during its 18-year occupation of the region.

If Rice and Siniora we're in agreement about making Shebaa Farms a priority, there'd probably be more smiles coming out of yesterday's meeting.

Instead, all we've heard about is differences, which is in line with what LiberalOasis and others anticipated for Condi's trip:

A useless spinning of wheels intended to buy time for the Israeli military to achieve its objectives, making achieving any diplomatic objectives all the harder.

Condi infamously defended her foot-dragging preceding this trip by saying: "I could have gotten on a plane and rushed over and started shuttling, and it wouldn't have been clear what I was shuttling to do."

(What can I do? I'm just the Secretary of State after all.)

She full well knows she could have been shuttling about Shebaa Farms and other outstanding Israel-Lebanon disputes.

She could be doing it now.

A truly engaged Secretary of State would, especially after the recent shifts on Shebaa farms by Israel and Hezbollah.

But she's not truly engaged. She, and her boss, are willfully disengaged.

And so, unless by some miracle other players step up, another opportunity to solve problems and advance MidEast peace will be criminally lost.