1.  Bills & Resolutions
 
(Gaza Flotilla/Turkey) H. Res. 1532: Introduced 7/15/10 by Rep. Titus (D-NV) and 12 cosponsors, "Urging an investigation into the role of the Insan Hak ve Hurriyetleri ve Insani Yardim Vakfi in providing financial, logistical, and material support to terrorists, and into the role of any foreign governments, including the Republic of Turkey, which may have aided and abetted the organizers of the recent 'Gaza Flotilla' mission to breach Israeli coastal security and assault the naval defense forces of the State of Israel." Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
 
(Israel/UN)  H. Res. 1510:  Introduced 7/13/10 by Rep. Gohmert (R-TX), "Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4636) to prohibit United States assistance to foreign countries that oppose the position of the United States in the United Nations." [HR 4636 was introduced by Gohmert on 2/22/10 and referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs].  Referred to the House Committee on Rules.  Note:  While neither H. Res. 1510 nor HR 4636 explicitly mention Israel, it seems likely that opposition to the US position on Israel-related issues at the UN is a primary - if not the primary - target of Gohmert's efforts.

(UN/Palestinians) HR 557: Introduced 1/15/09 by Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and currently having 105 cosponsors, the "United Nations Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act of 2009."   
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.  This week Rep. Ros-Lehtinen circulated a Dear Colleague letter seeking more cosponsors for this rather innocuously (and deceptively) named bill - a bill that purports to be about general UN reform, but is essentially about treatment of Israel at the UN and an effort to de-fund and shut down Palestinian-related UN organizations (including UNRWA).  The fact that Ros-Lehtinen's Dear Colleague raises ONLY Israel-related issues underscores the validity of this analysis.
 
2.  Attacking the Palestinian Authority on Capitol Hill
 
What better time than now - when President Obama is working to bring Israel and the Palestinians together indirect talks and with mid-term elections nearly upon us - to start attacking President Abbas on the Hill?  Clearly, that is the thinking of some people.
 
On 7/15/10, the Israel Project circulated an invitation to a 7/21 briefing on Capitol Hill entitled "Is the Palestinian Authority Preparing its People for Peace?"  The briefing will feature Palestinian Media Watch founder and director Itamar Marcus (who lives in the West Bank settlement of Efrat), a man whose raison d'etre has long appeared to be to convince the world that the Palestinians don't really want peace (PMW has just released a new report making this case, which will no doubt be the focus of the briefing). 
 
3. Gohmert's Wacky World
 
Once again this week, Rep. Gohmert (R-TX) took time on the House floor to "defend" Israel.  This week the main target of his ramblings was the NYT for reporting on US tax-exempt funding flowing to them (and from his comments, its seems that Gohmert is unaware that since 1967, the US - including Republican administrations - has unequivocally opposed Israeli settlement of the West Bank).
 
Gohmert, 7/13/10
 
"...it's been encouraging to see this administration in the past week show some friendliness toward our wonderful ally Israel, because all of the snubbing and pettiness by this administration in the way that it's treated Israel in conjunction with willing allies like The New York Times, like the 5,000-page editorial that was written about, there's just so much pettiness and snubbing of our friend Israel from this administration and its allies that they're hurting this Nation. Because when you hurt Israel, you hurt a true democracy in the middle of the Middle East, you hurt this country. You hurt any democracy when you hurt democracy that exists in the Middle East.
 
[Gohmert then reads aloud, verbatim, the full text of an article by right-wing journalist Caroline Glick bashing the NYT report and describing it as "a textbook case of the media's ideologically motivated aggression against Middle East reality" and "a premeditated affront to the very notion that the role of a newspaper is to report facts rather manufacture news aimed at shaping perceptions and skewing debate."  Glick goes on to quote the right-wing watchdog group Honest Reporting's allegation that "the article appears to be the product of active collusion between the Times and the radical, anti-Zionist, tax-exempt Gush Shalom organization" (as if the NYT doesn't have the capacity to actually report and research on its own, and on a topic that has been written about many times in the past).  She then accuses groups like Gush Shalom of having the goal of undermining US-Israel relations and argues that (a) settlements are completely legal, and (b) they are not an obstacle to peace - the only real obstacle is the Palestinians embrace of hatred and terror.]
 
"The article speaks for itself. It is a sad day when the New York Times has become such a political hack of a newspaper that in the summer of 1973, when I was in the Soviet Union, it was exciting. Actually, got a chance of going over there through Europe, coming out through Europe, to see a New York Times, especially in English. Exciting. And it was trusted to be the international resource. So it is a bit heartbreaking that as its sales circulation continues to plummet, it continues to lose money, that it continues to proceed with the very things that have brought down its reputation and hurt it as such an objective resource. Doing reports growing up as a kid, you knew you could count on anything that you found in the New York Times and cite it as a valuable and accurate resource. Not so anymore. Not so anymore.
 
"Israel is a friend, and I'm grateful that democracy has worked to the extent that this administration got concerned about its plummeting numbers enough that it realized maybe this time it should treat the Prime Minister of Israel with some respect, just as it is and just as it has heads of states of countries that despise us and have said they would be glad to see us fall as a Nation. It's nice if they could treat Prime Minister Netanyahu with the same respect that it treats some of our sworn enemies..."
 
4.  APN and J Street: Turning No into Yes on a Two-State Solution
 
Published July 7, 2010.  Coauthored by Lara Friedman, Director of Policy and Government Relations for Americans for Peace Now, and Isaac Luria, Vice President for Communications and New Media at J Street.
 
We hear far too many "Nos!" in the American Jewish and pro-Israel communities about why we can't ever achieve any reasonable compromise to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
 
We're turning these "Nos!" into "Yeses!" with the following short, rational responses.
 
1. No, there is no partner for peace.
 
Yes, there is a partner. The current Palestinian Authority leadership -- Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayaad -- are actually the most moderate and pro-peace Palestinian leaders the Palestinian Authority has ever had. Given the growing pull of extremism among some sectors of Palestinian society, they may just be the most moderate leaders we will ever have. Abbas has indicated that he acknowledges the tough compromises the Palestinians will have to make (including on the Right of Return) and the Jewish right to a homeland in the land of Palestine. And under their leadership, the Palestinian Authority has made enormous strides in improving security in the West Bank, building Palestinian government institutions in the past few years, and cracking down on hateful speech and incitement.
 
We must take advantage of this opportunity and pursue a negotiated two-state solution now with the current leadership of the Palestinian Authority - before it's too late.
 
2. No, land for peace is not the right way forward. We gave back Gaza and all we got was rockets.
 
Yes, land for peace remains the best - and only - formula for achieving Israeli security, and preserving Israel's Jewish character and democratic values.
 
The Gaza disengagement, however, was not an example of negotiating land for peace. The way that Israel withdrew from Gaza -- unilaterally and without negotiating security arrangements with the Palestinian Authority -- created a power vacuum that Hamas acted to fill. Had there been a negotiated withdrawal, it could have empowered moderate Palestinian leadership that would support negotiating with Israel for a two-state solution. Instead, the withdrawal empowered those would wage war against Israel.
 
3. No, we can't trust President Obama's commitment to Israeli security.
 
Yes we can. President Obama has consistently demonstrated, both through words and actions, a strong commitment to Israel's security. In fact, the Wall Street Journal recently reported that security cooperation between the US and Israel is significantly more extensive under President Obama than it was under President Bush. For example, the President recently requested an additional $205 million in funds for Israel's new missile defense system - something that was never funded by the US in the past.
 
President Obama's pursuit of a viable, lasting two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is further evidence of his commitment to Israel's security -- because achieving such a deal is the only way that Israel achieves real peace and security, and the only thing that can preserve Israel's Jewish character and democratic values.
 
4. No, we cannot want peace more than the Israelis and Palestinians.
 
Yes we can, and we should want it, regardless of the political moods among Israelis and Palestinians. This conflict is not merely a local issue for Israelis and Palestinians. It affects US national security interests in the region and around the world. Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian peace is in the vital national security interests of the United States.
 
Of course any viable peace deal will have to be accepted by both the Israelis and Palestinians. Thankfully, surveys consistently show large majorities of Israelis and Palestinians support a two-state solution.
 
The key is how to get there, especially when both sides' political systems make progress difficult. That is why a strong American role is so necessary -- to help the parties make the hard compromises necessary for peace, provide political cover to deal with anti-peace domestic political constituencies, employ important incentives and disincentives at the right moments, and suggest bridging proposals that will move the process forward.
 
5. No, there will never be peace as long as Hamas is in power in Gaza.
 
Yes, progress is possible even with Hamas in the picture.
 
Ultimately, a political resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be advanced by Palestinian political reconciliation. This is why third party efforts to achieve reconciliation and a unity government, in which Hamas renounces violence and engages in the political process, are so important. Officials in such a unity government would work within a diplomatic process to achieve an acceptable two-state solution. Israel already does negotiate indirectly with Hamas over Gilad Shalit and has negotiated largely successful ceasefires in the past -- so it is not fantasy that Israel would be able to negotiate with such a unity government.
 
And importantly: the single most effective way to curb Hamas' power and popularity would be if President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad succeeded in delivering statehood to the Palestinians - jumpstarting a vibrant and growing democracy and economy in the West Bank. At that point, Palestinians will be faced with a clear choice between a growing, vibrant, safe, and secure state, and a fundamentalist regime. Given the choice, it is likely that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians would choose the pro-peace, pro-negotiation approach to achieving their political aspirations.
 
6. No, peace is not possible until the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish State.
 
Yes it is. Israel's Jewish character is a matter of self-identification and it does not matter whether the Palestinians - or anyone else for that matter - recognize it as such. What does matter is that the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist - something President Abbas has done both in accepting the two-state solution and indicating he acknowledges the Jewish right to a homeland in the historic land of Israel and something the Palestinian Liberation Organization did during the Oslo Process. And what matters, too, is that Israel's leaders take the appropriate steps to ensure Israel's Jewish majority and character by urgently pursuing a two-state solution.
 
7. No, there can be no compromise on Jerusalem, because it belongs exclusively to Israel and the Jewish people.
 
Yes, there must be a compromise regarding Jerusalem. Jerusalem will ultimately be shared in some manner, and it will be a good thing for Israel. Jerusalem holds a unique place in the hearts of the Jewish people, and is also of great importance to Christians and Muslims. It is because of that significance that it is among the most difficult issues to address in resolving the conflict - and why we must do all that we can to ensure a peaceful, accessible future for the city.
 
The only way that Israel will remain secure, Jewish, and democratic is through the two-state solution. And the two-state solution is only possible if both Israeli and Palestinian claims to Jerusalem are reconciled. This must mean finding a way for Israeli Jerusalem -Yerushalayim - to be recognized as Israel's capital, and Palestinian Jerusalem - al Quds, with its 200,000 Palestinian residents - to be recognized as the capital of Palestine.
 
This is the only way forward, and it requires addressing the realities on the ground and developing a reasonable plan for sharing the city. Previous peace plans have included basic parameters - the Jewish areas of Jerusalem falling under Israeli sovereignty, Palestinian areas falling under Palestinian sovereignty, and special care taken to ensure accessibility and meet the needs of all when it comes to holy sites.
 
8.  No, the ongoing conflict is not an impediment to US goals in the Middle East.
 
Yes it is. The ongoing conflict in the Middle East effects Americans goals and interests in the region, and resolving it is of particular importance to US foreign policy goals. Actors like Iran continue to use the conflict in their proxy wars against American and Israeli interests. Terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda continue to use the conflict as a recruiting tool. Relationships with allied countries in the Middle East - like Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, and others - are undermined by the ongoing conflict.
 
Achieving two states and a comprehensive regional peace agreement will help stabilize the region, while building American credibility and supporting strategic interests. Additionally, ensuring Israel's own security and future is in America's interest. Therefore, it serves American interests to boldly and actively pursue two states.
 
9. No, a two-state solution is too little, too late. The only answer is a one-state solution.
 
We disagree. Israelis and Palestinians still consistently demonstrate their support for a two-state solution. On the ground, the two-state solution is still possible (but it won't be possible forever), and it is the only solution that will preserve Israel's security and Israelis Jewish and democratic values. And the one-state scenario is no solution, but only a recipe for perpetual violence and strife. Pessimism about whether viability of the two-state solution is a real concern -- and will continue to grow unless we can urgently achieve the only viable deal, a two-state solution.
 
10.  No, Israel bears no responsibility for the situation today. Israel has always wanted peace, but the Arabs have refused. The conflict and everything associated with it is 100% the fault of the Arabs.
 
Yes, Israel bears responsibility for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And yes, so do the Palestinians and other Arab states. Anyone who asserts that one side is entirely to blame - or entirely blameless - is ignoring present and historical realities.
 
But this is beside the point. The blame game needs to end. Too much time is spent by both sides trying to lay blame for how we got where we are today and why peace today remains so hard to achieve.
 
What matters now are the realities on the ground and the urgency of the situation. If we don't act immediately to achieve a two-state solution, we risk Israel's very future and the viability of a future, independent State of Palestine.
 
5.  APN on Tax-Exempt Funding for Settlements
 
APN on US tax-exempt funding of settlements
By Lara Friedman | July 8, 2010
 
For years settlers have openly fund-raised in the United States - including in synagogues, on booze cruises, in churches and at gala dinners. Over time, millions of dollars have flowed, tax-exempt, to settlers and settlement-related causes, including to support settler extremists in Hebron and East Jerusalem, and even to support the settler-run hesder yeshivas (programs that combine IDF military service and study( that many believe are inculcating soldiers with an extremist, seditious ideology.

As a group that focuses a great deal of energy on the settlement issue, we have tracked this phenomenon for years. We regularly comb through guidestar.org - a website tracking non-profit organizations (NPOs) - to collect the tax filings of groups that fund settlers and settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Likewise, we have watched the rise and fall of this issue in the public debate and have made our research available to those examining the issue.  It is clear that since the Obama Administration came into office and began taking a harder line on Israeli settlements, more attention has been focused on the issue of private US tax-exempt funding for settlements.
 
That attention reached a peak of sorts this week, with the publication by the New York Times  of a lengthy article on the issue. The Times reports, correctly, that hundreds of millions of dollars have flowed to settlers and settlement-related causes, including to support settler extremists in Hebron and East Jerusalem, and even to support the settler-run hesder yeshivas (programs that combine IDF military service and study) that many believe are inculcating soldiers with an extremist, seditious ideology.
 
The New York Times also notes, correctly, that most of this money appears to go to purposes that are legal under US laws governing tax-exempt funding.

However, the Times adds a very serious allegation: that these funds have "also paid for more legally questionable commodities: housing as well as guard dogs, bulletproof vests, rifle scopes and vehicles to secure outposts deep in occupied areas."

Given the intense focus on settlements and settler behavior right now, and given the kind of allegations made by the New York Times, we believe it is appropriate for activists to demand accountability and for policymakers to demand a closer look at the phenomenon of US private funding for settlements.

We also believe it is important to make clear what this demand for accountability is, and is not, about.

(1) The focus should be on accountability. Any NPO must operate within the law, regardless of its ideology or activities. The allegations made by the New York Times underscore concerns that settlement-related NPOs may not be doing so.

After so many years and so much tax-exempt money going to settlements, it is time for the US government and Congress to take a close look at the flow of funds from US citizens to settlements. Given the fungibility of funds, it may be difficult to prove that NPOs are collecting funds for purposes that are illegitimate or illegal, but it is something the US has a responsibility to investigate. Official US investigations into this issue will, in and of themselves, represent serious and unprecedented pressure on settlers on their US funders.

Grassroots efforts in this regard could include:
 
·        Asking Congress to demand a report from the General Accounting Office on the general phenomenon of US tax-exempt funds going to settlements and settlement-related activities, including an assessment of the likelihood of cases of such funding violating US law.
·        Urging the Department of Justice to investigate whether tax-exempt funding is going to support activities that are illegal, including activities that are related to violence or actions that are illegal under Israeli law.
·        Urging the US Administration to raise the issue with Israeli officials, bearing in mind that Israel bears ultimate responsibility for the activities of the settlers and for determining if they are breaking Israeli law.
 
(2) The focus should not be on "US policy." The first reaction of many of us when we hear about tax-exempt US funding for settlers is: the US opposes settlements. How can it be possible that the US is indirectly subsidizing settlements (given the fact that every tax-exempt dollar that goes to settlements represents a loss to the US Treasury of, say, 10-35 cents)? The conclusion is that on this basis the tax-exempt status of these groups should be taken away. But it is not so simple and the New York Times, laudably, does not jump on this very problematic bandwagon.
Here is the problem: from a free speech perspective it is dangerous and irresponsible to argue that an organization should be ineligible for non-profit status if its ideology/activities are inconsistent with US policy (as opposed to US law). Such an argument has very frightening implications.

For example, under George W. Bush, such an argument would have meant that most organizations working on women's health, the environment, human rights and even civil rights could have lost their non-profit status. Indeed, given the Bush Administration's tacit acceptance (according to Eliot Abrams) of much Israeli settlement construction, the activities of Americans for Peace Now - which opposes all settlement construction - could have been construed as inconsistent with US policy.

Targeting non-profits using the argument that "their activities violate US policy" is a slippery slope that should concern all of us who care about free speech and civil society organizing.

(3) We all need to keep our eyes on the ball. The millions of US dollars that make their way to West Bank settlements (not including East Jerusalem) are a drop in the bucket compared to the tens of billions of dollars that Israeli governments have for decades pumped into this disastrous enterprise through direct and indirect subsidies and investments. These privately donated American dollars may make the lives of the settlers a little easier, they have little impact on construction patterns. They can only marginally affect the reversibility of the settlement enterprise.

And whether a settlement is approved, built or extended, or whether an outpost - established against Israeli law - is removed, is not determined by foreign donations. All of these things are entirely in the hands of the government of Israel. Because everything that takes place in the West Bank requires the approval of Israel's ministry of defense.

Even in East Jerusalem - where settler organizations are relying on private donations to fund their feverish efforts to change the facts on the ground in the most sensitive areas in and around the Old City, with the openly-expressed goal of ensuring that there will be no future compromise with the Palestinians on Jerusalem - the government of Israel's role is key. Even these private projects could not go forward without the tactic support of the Israeli government.

Finally, it should be emphasized that most Americans who send money to settlers - especially big donors like Irving Moskowitz - don't do it for the tax breaks; they give money because they are ideologically supportive of the settlement enterprise, especially in East Jerusalem. Most will continue to give, regardless of whether the donations are tax-exempt or not.

In the end, the only real antidote to settlement expansion is a peace agreement that - despite the best efforts of the settlers and their US supporters - ends Israel's West Bank settlement enterprise, once and for all, and achieves real peace and security for Israel.

This is what we are working for - it is what Peace Now is doing every single day: monitoring settlements; making information about settlements public so that Israelis and the world can hold the Israeli government and settlers accountable; and educating Israelis to support peace. It is what APN doing every day when we demand resolute and ever-stronger US government efforts to compel Israel's government to clamp down on settlement growth, including dealing with the "outposts" - construction that even Israel admits is illegal.

We must not lose sight of the real issue. Ending the expansion of settlements and ultimately reversing the settlement enterprise will come only as the result of political decisions by the Israeli government. And such decisions will only be the result of pressure from inside Israel and from friends of Israel worldwide. Shining a bright and unflattering light on private US funding for settlements can be part of this pressure, but ultimately, while private US dollars matter, but it is political capital that matter most.

For some additional APN thoughts on this issue, see Ori Nir's post on the New York Times' "Room for Debate" blog (the original, full version of his post, which was trimmed down by the NYT, is available on our blog).
 
6.  16,000 Sign APN Petition to Obama: Extend Settlement Freeze
 
On July 6th Americans for Peace Now delivered a petition signed by 15,962 people to President Barack Obama, urging him to press for an extension of the moratorium on construction in West Bank settlements.  The petition was covered in Haaretz that same day - "Americans for Peace Now to Obama: Extend settlement freeze".
 
"These thousands of voices are expressing what we all know: Peace for Israel is more important than settlement expansion. American leadership toward a two-state solution is essential, and Israel's future depends on reaching such a solution," said APN's president and  CEO Debra DeLee. 
 
The full text of APN's petition follows: 
 
Dear President Obama,
 
For real progress to be achieved towards peace for Israel, construction in West Bank settlements needs to be stopped. You were right to push Israel to adopt a settlement freeze last year. Now you need to take action to see it extended. 
 
Those of us who care about Israel know that settlement construction is bad for Israel. It undermines faith in peace talks and it complicates negotiations over the future border between Israel and the Palestinians. 
 
Settlements also constitute a burden to Israel's security services. They create points of friction between Israelis and Palestinians. And they drain Israel's financial resources 
 
Please press Prime Minister Netanyahu to extend the settlement freeze. 
 
Holding the line on settlements sends the message that America means what it says. It reminds Israelis that they must choose between making peace and deepening the occupation. It also strengthens America as we look to the Arab world to make important contributions to a renewed peace process.
 
6.  Blogpost on the Netanyahu visit:  Enough already with the "Obama-caved-to-Bibi" Spin
 
Enough already with the "Obama-caved-to-Bibi" Spin
By Lara Friedman | July 9, 2010
 
It is Day 3 of the "Obama-caved-to-Bibi" editorializing.  Enough already.  

Yes, it would have great if during this week's visit Obama has made explicit his expectation that the settlement moratorium should be extended past September 26th.  And yes, many of us would have liked to hear him press Bibi on issues related to Jerusalem, Gaza, and Bibi's readiness to discuss all final status issues in negotiations and achieve a peace agreement to realize the two-state solution.  

But we all knew in advance that the goal of this visit - for both Obama and Bibi, each for his own reasons - was a clear public statement that relations between the two are fine.  And barring some 11th hour Israeli provocation - an outrage on par with the Ramat Shlomo embarrassment during the Biden visit, or the announcement of building permits for Shepherds Hotel the same day Bibi was set to meet Obama on his last visit - that was always what this was going to be.  The point being: nobody should be surprised that both Bibi and Obama were content to rhetorically avoid or gloss over any disagreements.
 
But reading all the articles and blog posts, it is hard not conclude that a segment of the population is deeply disappointed that this visit didn't end up in a public fist-fight, or at least the diplomatic equivalent thereof.  And absent that, it seems that many pundits aren't content with anything less than calling this visit a total triumph for Bibi and defeat for Obama (the exact opposite of their appraisal of Bibi's last visit).

This is so silly.

Beneath the headlines of the past 15 months - breathlessly reporting the alleged demise of the traditionally strong US-Israel relationship - lurks a very different reality: strong US-Israel cooperation in pretty much all areas. Cooperation that is stronger even than during the time of Israel's erstwhile "bff" (best friend forever), George W. Bush.  

This whole time, by any objective, concrete measure, things have actually been going very well between the two countries, even if by the yardstick of PDAs (public displays of affection) relations seemed tense.  But given the choice between reporting on the very concrete proof of good US-Israel relations, and reporting the latest E! News-style gossip about who's mad at whom, the latter of course won out.   So the public narrative has been all about the rift, or the shift, or whatever you want to call it, between the two countries and the two leaders.

This means that those who like the idea of the US and Israel being at odds spent the past 18 months giving Obama credit that he didn't deserve.  And those who hate the idea have been excoriating Obama unfairly.

Both these narratives were totally out of sync with reality.

After this visit, once the "Bibi-rolled-Obama" reporting peters out, both narratives will have to be recalibrated to fit reality.  In this reality, nations and leaders don't always agree, but that doesn't mean that the bilateral relationship is in the toilet, and in this reality, daily gossip columns masquerading as news don't provide any real insight into foreign policy decision-making.

And maybe then the E!-style reporting - excitedly reporting the alleged tiff between Bibi and Obama as if it were the latest chapter in the breakup between last season's star of the Bachelor and his fiancée Vienna - can finally end, and we can focus on the real issues and challenges that lie ahead.  

Why should we care if Bibi and Obama like each other, if they trust each other, or if their wives have stuff in common?  

What we should care about is whether, by the time we get to September 26th (the expiration of the settlement moratorium), the Obama Administration has mustered the political will to twist Bibi's arm - and it will take some twisting - to extend the moratorium, and without adding any new exceptions.  

We should care whether the Obama Administration will have the wherewithal to get Bibi to intervene the next time the settlers or the mayor launch a serious provocation in Jerusalem.

And we should care whether, come the opening (hopefully soon) of direct Israeli-Palestinian talks, the Obama Administration has the courage, vision, commitment, and resolve to demand that both sides come to the table in good faith and that both sides act in good faith away from the table. 

And we should care about whether, come the day when the sides reach (the inevitable) impasse, the Obama Administration has the will intervene to keep moving the ball forward towards peace.

It is not unreasonable to hope that this latest Bibi visit - and the recalibration of the narratives that results - will strengthen the Obama Administration's hand and bolster its resolve with respect to these important challenges.  We can be hopeful - meaning, to paraphrase President Obama, that we need not be blindly optimistic nor needlessly pessimistic.

We should judge President Obama on what happens at these critical decision points and start ignoring the gossip disguised as news.
 
========================================
Don't forget to check the APN blog for breaking news and analysis about issues related to Israel, the Middle East, and the Hill.
========================================
 
Past editions of the Round-Up are archived and available online at:
http://peacenow.org/legislative-round-ups
  
Americans for Peace Now promotes Israeli security through the peace process and supports the Israeli Peace Now movement.   For more information, visit the APN web site at www.peacenow.org or contact Lara Friedman, APN Director of Policy and Government Relations, at 202/728-1893, or at lfriedman@peacenow.org.