But one has to wonder why so many in the media and so many pundits have decided that the only "lens" they care about is the one that sees evidence of the Obama Administration's fecklessness in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

As my colleague Hagit Ofran and I wrote: "...it is hard to avoid the impression - based on the zeal with which the media jumped on the non-story of Clinton's speech in Jerusalem - that a lot of people are more interested in seeing Obama fail than succeed. A lot of people are ready, even eager, for proof that this new American president who had the audacity to aim for Middle East peace from his first day in office, will fall flat on his face. It is like they are salivating at the thought that he has given up and given in, just like every US president before him. Proving the cynics and skeptics right."

If one is interested, there has been plenty of evidence - almost entirely unreported - of US resolve on the key issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  

Take, for example, the UN General Assembly.  The take-away for the press - and pretty much the entire world - was that the US was caving to Israel on settlements.  This narrative was based on Obama having said at a press briefing at the beginning of his meeting with Abbas and Netanyahu: "Israelis...have discussed important steps to restrain settlement activity."  Note that the sentence is entirely descriptive - laying out what the Israelis have discussed, not what the US has asked.  Note that the sentence does not state or imply US satisfaction with these discussions or this position.  Indeed, in "dip-speak" - the very special language of diplomacy that seeks to avoid saying exactly what one means - the sentence is carefully crafted to sound positive but not actually be laudatory or express approval.

But fine, even if people want to focus on "restrain" and draw some conclusions, why not equally draw conclusions from the much more important, major speech that Obama delivered the following day to the UN General Assembly?  The one in which he said "...the time has come to re-launch negotiations without preconditions that address the permanent status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees, and Jerusalem. And the goal is clear: Two states living side by side in peace and security -- a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people."

In this speech Obama mentioned Jerusalem - which Netanyahu has made clear he does not want on the agenda.  He mentioned the occupation that began in 1967, which is a term of reference that is critical from the Palestinian perspective and problematic from the Israeli perspective, since it sets the Green Line as the starting point for negotiations.  He talked about viable, contiguous territory, which means no settlement fingers jabbing deep into the West Bank and cutting it into pieces...  And of course, just before he these sentences, he reiterated US policy on settlements: "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."  Pretty categorical.

And then there is Clinton.  The story of her Jerusalem comments is already well-known, even if it has been reportedly in a not-altogether-accurate manner.  What has not been reported is what she said after Jerusalem (except to report with some snarkiness that she tried to repair the damage done in Jerusalem, to no avail).

But Clinton said some important things after Jerusalem.  For example, on 11/4/09 in Cairo, during the Q&A following her meeting with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheith, she said, was asked a question about the Obama Administration's position on Jerusalem, the West Bank barrier, and settlements.  She responded:

"I can repeat to you what President Obama said in his speech at the United Nations and what he said here in Cairo - that the United States believes that we need a state that is based on the territory that has been occupied since 1967...I think that there is no doubt in anyone's mind that moving toward a state that reflects the aspirations and the rights of the Palestinian people must include all of the issues that have both been discussed and mentioned by President Obama, and that includes Jerusalem.

"...We would not be having this discussion if we had reached a deal, because as you remember, the parameters that were laid out would have recognized a state on the '67 borders with some swapping of land agreeable to both sides, and it would have also established the capital for the Palestinian state in East Jerusalem, and it would have created a shared responsibility with international support to protect the holy places that are holy to all three major religions of Abraham."

This sounds an awful lot like the laying down of some US parameters for peace talks.  Parameters that include: a state based on 1967 borders with mutually agreed-on land swaps, a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem and some kind of special regime for the Old City and Holy Basin.  Is it a definitive expression of Obama Administration policy?  Perhaps not, but it is certainly a clear indication of the Administration's thinking on this issue - a much clearer indication that was given by the single word "unprecedented."

Indeed, it is the kind of comment that you would think would have drawn some serious press attention - the kind of comment that would have occasioned the kind of follow-up questions in the State Department and White House press briefings that might give us a clearer sense of what these words might be hinting at.  Unfortunately, it did neither.

But there may be good news: in recent days the media and pundits seem to have found a new controversy through which to report on the Israeli-Palestinian issue:  the lens of growing US-Israel tensions.  So we see reports about the tough signals that Obama Administration is giving Netanyahu, for example around this week's meeting at the White House.  And we see reports about senior officials delivering a "tougher" new line on the settlement issue - for example, Undersecretary for Political Affairs William Burns stating 11/10/09 that:

"...We do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements; we consider the Israeli offer to restrain settlement activity to be a potentially important step, but it obviously falls short of the continuing Roadmap obligation for a full settlement freeze..."

Not exactly news, in the sense of new messages or positions from the Obama Administration, but good news that the media and pundits are now apparently finding them worthy of notice.  Let it only continue.