Today's Haaretz features an article headlined "U.S. drops demand for Israel building freeze in East Jerusalem."  A surprisingly authoritative-sounding headline, given the leak-free approach of the Mitchell team thus far. 

Savvy consumers of the news - including members of the peace camp who may be fearful that the Obama Administration, like so many US administrations that have gone before it, will eventually give in to Israel on these key issues - would do well to remember that in this kind of high-stakes political poker, a lot of what we hear in the press is spin (and bluffing). And we would all do well to wait and see what is actually agreed before passing judgment. If the agreement is good - however it is framed - then we will praise it.  If it is bad, there will be plenty of opportunity to criticize it at that time.

Hagit Ofran, the director of Peace Now's Settlement Watch, has an important analysis over at the Huffington Post laying out the criteria for a meaningful settlement freeze.   In a nutshell, she writes that a freeze must:

(a) have no loopholes -- (for more on loopholes, see our "5 Bogus Reasons for Opposing a Settlement Freeze),
(b) be transparent, especially with respect to any construction that Israel insists on "completing" despite the freeze;
(c) not include anything that could be interpreted as US permission or approval for any settlement construction -- now or in the future -- anywhere, and not include anything that could be interpreted as establishing new "understandings" about where Israel thinks it can build, and
(d) apply not only to construction but also planning. 

Perhaps the most important take-away from her analysis is the following:  yes, we'd prefer a freeze that includes every single structure and is permanent.  But let's remember:  a freeze is not an end in itself.  The goal here is to get a freeze that is politically significant and sufficiently credible to help launch serious negotiations that, if they succeed, will render the details of the freeze irrelevant, since a final status agreement will resolve the issue, once and for all.  A freeze that at a minimum meets the criteria laid out by Hagit, while not the perfect airtight freeze we would love to see -- for Israel's own sake -- would nonetheless be politically significant and sufficiently credible to help launch such negotiations.  For this reason, we would gladly support such a freeze.

Christian Friends of Israeli Communities (CFOIC) - a US non-profit organization dedicated to supporting settlements, and especially settlements in the West Bank heartland - is raising funds these days using a very simple message: help us block the two-state solution.  And we are not talking small money here: according to CFOIC's tax filings, in 2008 the group sent $1.1 million in cash support for West Bank settlers (as well as for settlers removed from Gaza).

CFOIC's latest fundraising pitch (click here to view/download a copy), sent out in an email this morning, ends with the following exhortation:

"Today even many who support Israel's right to exist and to have safe and secure borders have adopted the two-state solution concept.  But even if the whole world should choose this as the answer, as all major governments have, God's children must never compromise. Our only real choice is to stand firm on the word of God!  I choose to stand with the residents of Judea and Samaria. Will you join me? Even in these tough economic times, by making a generous contribution to support the people of Judea and Samaria, the people who are standing on God's word by living on His land, you, too, are choosing to stand on His word and to be blessed!Stand with Israel and Donate Now..."

For more fun from CFOIC, check out their "Save Israel" video...

AP's Matti Friedman today report separately on a story that keeps popping up: the growing national-religious trend in the IDF and what appears to be the evangelical national-religious influence of the IDF's chief rabbi, who is a West Bank settler.  Friedman reports concerns that "that the military rabbinate and its charismatic chief, Brig.Gen. Avichai Rontzki, are infusing a militant mix of Judaism and nationalism into a traditionally secular institution that embodies the Israeli consensus."  Similar analysis was published previously in Haaretz and other Israeli papers, as well as in the New York Times, including a remarkable open letter from two reservists protesting the religious-nationalist indoctrination efforts...

Today, Jerusalem expert Daniel Seidemann, of the Israeli NGO Ir Amim, circulated his observations on Mike Huckabee's East Jerusalem adventure (or better yet, adventurism) and what it says about Jerusalem and President Obama's peace efforts.  Read the full analysis after the jump...

The ADL's ad in yesterday's New York Times (August 4, 2009) was troubling. My colleague, Ori Nir -- who has known ADL National Director Abe Foxman for years -- wrote a heartwrenching post in response, concluding that: