I read with some disappointment James Besser's response (in the New York Jewish Week) to APN's call for President Barack Obama to be more aggressive in the pursuit of Middle East peace.

Besser concedes that:

"APN is probably right that U.S. pressure on both sides is the only strategy with any real hope of pushing the two sides back to the negotiating table."

But he also argues that:

"Leaving aside the question of whether that's smart policy or not, politics suggests the administration is likely to move in the opposite direction."

Let's hope David Axelrod isn't drawing this same mistaken conclusion.  As we argued in the same paper that Besser is critiquing, Obama has little to lose -- and everything to gain -- by stepping up pressure to make progress toward peace.

In a rare bit of good news regarding Jerusalem, this week it was confirmed that famed architect Frank Gehry has pulled out of the Simon Wiesenthal Center's (SWC) misguided plans to build a "Museum of Tolerance" smack-dab on top of the most important historic Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem.  As he exits the project he takes with him his ambitious blueprint for the structure, taking away the government of Israel's lame argument that the project is vital to Israel since it will create an architectural gem of international stature in the heart of West Jerusalem. 

The Government of Israel and SWC's longstanding insistence on building the museum on the site of this historic Muslim cemetery from the start provoked widespread consternation and outrage among right-thinking people in the US and Israel, not to mention the Muslim world.  In a sort of tragi-comedy (where the irony of the situation was apparently lost only to the SWC), it has also forced SWC leaders (and in particular Rabbi Hier) to transform themselves into rhetorical, moral, and ethical contortionists, twisting and turning the facts and arguments to try to defend a plan that is patently indefensible. 

The exit from the project of its celebrity architect offers Israel and the SWC a wonderful face-saving opportunity -- a chance to change course and come up with a new plan on a new site.  Doing so will ensure that if a Museum of Tolerance is built in Jerusalem, it is built in a manner that reflects and supports the value for which it is named and to which, ostensibly, it is dedicated.

Continue to read a Backgrounder on the project

For some time there has been a debate over whether President Obama will, or should, release his own ideas about the content of an Israeli-Palestinian permanent status agreement (PSA).  Now, as there appears to be a renewed push underway to launch Israeli-Palestinian permanent status talks, there is again discussion of whether it is time for President Obama to lay down some clear US ideas about those talks.

Interestingly, the Obama Administration has already gone a good way in this direction.  The fact is, with little fanfare and nobody really noticing, the Obama Administration has - in speeches and other statements of President Obama and his top officials - been gradually laying out some clear premises upon which it believes any permanent status talks will be based.  While these statements fall short of directly stating US expectations for the content of a PSA, they very clearly communicate US policy on some of the key permanent status issues, and it is no great leap to infer from them some clear US expectations about the shape and content of a PSA.

Transforming these discrete policy utterances into a cohesive set of premises about peace could arguably be very helpful in energizing President Obama's Middle East peace effort, reasserting US leadership and confidence in the Middle East policy arena.  Doing so could also reassure Israelis and Palestinians - as well as key allies in the region whom the US needs help from in launching talks - that the US recognizes and validates their core concerns.  Moreover, were the US to release a formal policy statement of some kind, along the lines discussed below, it would be very difficult for Israel or the Palestinians to attack the content, since it genuinely includes nothing that has not already been said.

Since Special Middle East Envoy George Mitchell's appearance on Charlie Rose, the Israeli press has been full of reports of official indignation and outrage.  The running theme is: how dare Mitchell threaten Israel with cutting aid if it does not play ball on the peace process?  

And in a gift to Israeli hasbara-niks, this weekend's visit to Jerusalem by two of Obama's chief opponents in Congress, defeated Republican presidential candidate John McCain (R-AZ) and his lackey, Joe Lieberman (I-CT) spent most of Sunday telling the Israeli media how they would never allow such a thing to happen.

What Mitchell actually said, after Rose pressed him on whether the US has any sticks to use in the Israeli-Palestinian arena, was this: 

As we near the 1-year anniversary of the end of the Gaza War, the Gaza Strip remains under siege, with Israel allowing very little - in terms of either goods or people - to enter or exit the area.  Last week, in an appearance on the Charlie Rose show, Middle East Special Envoy George Mitchell said that he thought Israel would have be better off if it opens the crossings (and thus lifts or seriously alleviates the siege).  

This is not the first time senior US government officials have argued that Israel should lift the siege.  Indeed, almost exactly a year ago President Obama made the same argument - and made it several times since - only to be ignored by Israel.

Last week (January 7), Defense Minister Ehud Barak issued an order "mitigating" the settlement freeze - in effect revising the terms of the settlement "moratorium" imposed earlier by military order.  The order was immediately denounced by settlers as meaningless, but the headlines told the real story, at least in terms of how the decision is viewed politcally:  Haaretz: "6 weeks into settlement freeze, Barak eases restrictions"; YNet: "Barak orders settlement freeze mitigations" and Maariv (Hebrew) "Following the Freeze: Eases in Construction." 

Now, in the "adding insult to injury" category, it is being reported today that the Israeli High Court of Justice has decided to re-examine the cases of two illegal outposts - outposts that in the past the government of Israel has admitted are completely illegal and promised to demolish.  In the words of Peace Now Secretary General Yaariv Oppenheimer,  "The government of Israel is thumbing its nose at the rule of law and granting immunity to illegal building by settlers. On the same day that the Civil Administration destroyed 14 Palestinian buildings, the settlers are again being granted a judicial gift, as the process changes from evacuation to authorization. The defense minister ensures protection of the status of the Supreme Court within the Green Line - but decides to ignore the law and submit to settler pressure beyond it."

Background on both stories after the break.

Special report from Daniel Seidemann and Lara Friedman

As more reports of new settler activities and settler plans in East Jerusalem accumulate now on an almost daily basis, it is becoming clear that we are in the middle of a Jerusalem settlement blitz.  

This blitz is part real and part hype.  The motivation behind the blitz is clear: fear that the peace process will take root.  The goal of the blitz is also clear:  to prevent this from happening.  

The good news here is that the nature of this blitz - consisting of a combination of relatively obscure, small projects and projects that are unlikely to actually be implemented - demonstrates how few cards the settlers and their supporters have to play in Jerusalem. 

The bad news is that every report of new provocative plans in Jerusalem - even reports that are mostly hot air - represents a very real and tangible blow to the effort to re-launch the peace effort.  As such, the Obama Administration and the international community cannot let the Israeli government off the hook in Jerusalem - even as the Israeli government will try to disclaim responsibility, assert that it has no authority, and will try to downplay the importance of these Jerusalem provocations.  Jerusalem is the first and best test of how serious the Netanyahu government and the international community are about peace.