When Will Israeli-Palestinian Talks Renew? Negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians may renew later this month, according to Israeli press reports.

Today's Yedioth Ahronoth reports that the talks will resume following a tripartite meeting between President Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. That meeting is scheduled to take place at the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in New York on September 23rd.

U.S. Envoy George Mitchell is now in Israel reportedly in an effort to get the parties to agree to a "package deal" on settlements and other issues that will pave the way towards meaningful talks.

Mitchell has his work cut out for him. Israel is still reportedly refusing to implement a full settlement freeze or to refrain from provocative acts in East Jerusalem. The Palestinians are reportedly unwilling to renew talks if Israel continues settlement construction. (Yedioth Ahronoth, 9/14/09; Ma'ariv, 9/13/09)

The Fierce Urgency of Peace: 72% of Israelis believe that the need to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is urgent, while only 24% disagree. This was a central finding in the latest poll by the Tami Steinmetz Center at Tel Aviv University.

This sense of urgency is evident across the Israeli political spectrum, including 82% of Israelis who identified as leaning left, 79% of those who identified as centrists, and 66% of those who said they were right-wingers.

These political divisions, however, have an impact when Israelis are asked about the threats to Israel's security. Those on the right tend to worry more intensely about threats to Israel's national security compared to those on the left. Only 20% of left-wingers believe that there is a high chance of an all-out attack by one or more Arab states against Israel in the next five years. 44% of those on the right think that there is a high chance.

At the same time Israelis trust their military without regard to where they sit on the political spectrum. 85% of Israelis said they rely on the IDF to defend the State of Israel and its citizens successfully in the event of an attack by Arab states.

"In other words," write pollsters Ephraim Yaar and Tamar Hermann, "the public indeed relies on the IDF's ability to cope successfully with an Arab attack, but prefers the political solution over the military one." (Tami Steinmetz Center, 9/8/09)

Settler Campaign Falls Flat: West Bank settlers failed last week in their effort to demonstrate opposition within the Likud to a settlement freeze.

The intra-Likud anti-freeze uprising was supposed to have climaxed at a meeting at Likud headquarters in Tel Aviv on Wednesday. The meeting was organized by Shevah Stern, a settler and a prominent Likud activist.

The settlers had reason to believe that they could rally much of the party's leadership. According to media reports, the settlers had lined up almost half of Likud's 27 Knesset members to attend anti-freeze rallies. Earlier this month, 14 Likud MKs signed a petition opposing the freeze.

But several hours before the meeting, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu personally called the three Likud cabinet members and several party legislators who were reportedly planning to attend the event.

The pressure worked. The rally was eventually attended by only four legislators whom Yedioth Ahronoth characterized as Knesset Members "from the right wing fringes of Likud." (Jerusalem Post, 8/27 & 9/9/09; Yedioth Ahronoth, 9/9 & 9/10/09; Makor Rishon-Hatzofe, 9/11/09; Ynet, 9/9/09)

Who is a Sucker? Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's comment last week that Israel is "willing to make concessions for peace, but we won't be suckers," came under attack in yesterday's edition of Haaretz.

"Concessions are essential now to improve Israel's position in the world and to jump-start the stalled peace process," the newspaper's editorial noted. "Such concessions have absolutely nothing to do with being 'suckers.' It is actually the prime minister's attitude of refusal on the matter of freezing settlement construction that could cause serious political damage. If Israel makes concessions, it will not be a sucker; if it continues to refuse, Netanyahu's term will be apt."

The editorial called on Netanyahu to stop obfuscating. "On the eve of Rosh Hashanah, six months after assuming office, Netanyahu must stop with his feints and leading us astray, and finally reveal his true intentions. Conflicting messages - such as the commitment to a two-state solution and at the same time a normal life for settlers - first and foremost damage his credibility. Netanyahu has not made one significant political achievement so far other than his survival maneuvers in the face of his coalition, and his wheeling and dealing in the face of the United States' just demands."

"It's not too late to change not only the style, but especially the content," the editorial concluded. (Haaretz, 9/13/09)

What to Make of the Iranian Proposal? The full text of the Iranian response to the latest international call for negotiations was leaked to the public on Friday.

National Iranian American Council (NIAC) Policy Director Patrick Disney saw the Iranian proposal as "somewhat disappointing." At the same time Disney sees the door to constructive engagement as open. "To characterize this document as a 'rejection' of negotiations, or as 'ignoring' the key issues is disingenuous and false," he wrote.

NIAC President Trita Parsi wrote for the Huffington Post that "while the Iranian response cannot be characterized as a resounding yes, neither is it a categorical rejection of negotiations." She added that "an opening can be found not only to address the nuclear problem, but also the dire human rights situation and the conspicuous absence of justice in Iran."

President Barack Obama appears to be taking advantage of this opening. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said Friday that the United States is "willing to meet with Iran. We hope to meet with Iran. We want to see serious engagement on the nuclear issue, in particular." (ProPublica, 9/11/09; NIAC, 9/11/09; Huffington Post, 9/11/09; Haaretz, 9/13/09)

Did Netanyahu Agree to Withdraw from the Golan Heights? An old debate over Benjamin Netanyahu's alleged commitment for a full withdrawal from the Golan Heights in exchange for a peace agreement with Syria resurfaced last week with the publication of a new book offering more details on the indirect negotiations that Netanyahu held during his first term as prime minister with Hafez al-Assad, Syria's president at the time.

The new book by Danny Yatom, who served as the Mossad chief during Netanyahu's first term as prime minister, confirms accounts made by former senior American officials and Syrian government officials, who contend that Netanyahu agreed to a full withdrawal from the Golan Heights.

Netanyahu and his aides deny this claim.

The debate revolves around a document, known as a the "Lauder Document," named after Ron Lauder, a former U.S. ambassador to Austria and a close friend of Netanyahu's, whom the prime minister used in the late 1990's as a secret emissary to the Syrians.

Lauder reportedly secured some commitments from both Assad and Netanyahu, but the indirect negotiations did not reach a point of fruition. When Netanyahu was defeated in the 1999 elections by Ehud Barak, Barak asked Netanyahu for a briefing on these secret negotiations. Barak, according to Yatom, was unhappy with Netanyahu's vague briefing and asked Lauder to brief President Bill Clinton. Lauder then provided Clinton with a letter, which summarized the agreements reached in the negotiations between the leaders of Israel and Syria, as he understood them. Quotes from the letter are published for the first time in Yatom's book.

The Lauder Document, as quoted in the book, plainly states: "Israel will withdraw from the Syrian land taken in 1967... to a commonly agreed border based on the line of June 4, 1967."

In an interview with Yedioth Ahronoth, Yatom argues that the Lauder Document contains "agreements, not the fanciful creations of Lauder's imagination." He continues: "This letter shows unequivocally that Netanyahu actually agreed to withdraw from the entire Golan Heights. When Barak said that the three prime ministers before him, including Netanyahu, had agreed to withdraw from the Golan Heights, he knew what he was talking about even though Netanyahu denies it to this day."

In response to the new book, Netanyahu's office accused Yatom of "recycling once again events and claims that never happened." (Yedioth Ahronoth, 9/11/09)