During his speech today, President Obama reiterated standing U.S. policy that the expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestine must be ended. “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop,” he said.

On MSNBC this afternoon, former Vice President Cheney’s daughter, Liz Cheney, argued that Obama’s insistence that Israel freeze settlement expansion goes “much further” than the Roadmap to Peace negotiated by the Bush administration in 2002:

MITCHELL: Can you clarify at all a dispute some or among former Bush administration middle east experts and officials as to whether there was a secret promise or an agreement with Israel that Israel could proceed with settlement expansion to accommodate population growth?

CHENEY: It is a very complicated issue and the Road Map does talk about settlements. … But there’s the issue of, in existing settlements, if a family has a baby, are you allowed to build another room in the house? … I think there’s no question that this White House has gone much further in saying to the Israelis, “you must absolutely stop all of it.” And without, in my view, being as demanding of the Palestinians in terms of the security side of this equation.

Watch it:

Cheney is right to note that the Road Map to Peace — negotiated while she served in the Bush administration as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs — “does talk about settlements.” But she apparently doesn’t recall that when the Road Map talks about settlements, it is in the context of clearly stipulating that the Israeli government must freeze all settlement expansion — “including natural growth.” From the Road Map:

Cheney did not address a reported secret deal between former President Bush and Israel allowing some settlement expansion, despite being asked about it by host Andrea Mitchell:

Additionally, it is simply false to say that the Obama administration is not “being as demanding of the Palestinians” with regard to the security of Israel and its citizens. In his speech this morning, Obama made it clear that the U.S. would accept nothing less than full renunciation of violence in pursuit of political objectives on the part of the Palestinians:

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It’s a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That’s not how moral authority is claimed; that’s how it is surrendered.

At another point in the interview, Cheney repeated Eric Erickson’s false claim that Obama equated conditions for Jews during the Holocaust with conditions in Palestine today.

Last month, President Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and pressed for focus on a resolution to the Israel-Palestine dispute. Obama specifically called on Israel to freeze all settlements in the West Bank. “Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s a difficult issue. I recognize that. But it’s an important one, and it has to be addressed.”

Previous Israeli governments have come to expect the White House to allow loopholes in any demand on settlement freezes, such as the Bush administration’s back-door agreement with the Israelis back in late 2002 allowing expansion within existing West Bank settlements, what the Israelis call “natural growth.” Israelis have used “natural growth” arguments to justify funding further settlement expansion. In fact, recent data show that “in 2007, natural growth accounted for 63 percent of settlement population growth, whereas internal migration accounted for 37 percent.”

This time, however, the Obama administration is holding firm and doing so publicly. More importantly, it appeared that Netanyahu ran into problems when dealing with Congress on the settlement issue soon after meeting Obama:

Whereas in the past Israeli leaders have sometimes eased pressure from Washington on the settlements issue by going to members of Congress, this time, observers in Washington and Israel say, key pro-Israel allies in Congress have been largely reinforcing the Obama team’s message to Netanyahu. What changed? “Members of Congress have more willing to follow the leadership of the administration … because [they] believe it is in our national security interest to move toward ending the conflict and that it is not a zero sum for Israel,” the former senior Clinton administration official said.

However, Politico reports this week that support for Obama’s message on Israel-Palestine among Democrats in Congress is starting to wane. “My concern is that we are applying pressure to the wrong party in this dispute,” said Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV). Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) complained, “I would have liked to hear the president talk more about the Palestinian obligation to cut down on terrorism.” Today, the L.A. Times reports more dissent from congressional Democrats:

Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House foreign affairs subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, said focusing on settlement activity “detracts” from top U.S. goals in the region. However, he added: “I do not support a settlement freeze that calls on Israeli families not to grow, get married, or forces them to throw away their grandparents. Telling people not to have children is unthinkable and inhumane.“

Ackerman’s claim is a canard. No one is calling on Israeli families “not to grow.” And as Matt Yglesias notes, “Ackerman’s position is just the position that peace is impossible, and that Israel must fight forever to squeeze the Palestinians out of the West Bank, while the Palestinians must fight forever for the destruction of Israel.”

Moreover, Weiner’s comment is not even factually accurate; Obama has made it very clear on numerous occasions that the Palestinians must meet their obligations under the “road map” to a two-state solution laid out in 2003. But Obama has also said the Israelis must meet their obligations as well. A provision in the road map specifically states that Israel “freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).”

In an interview with NPR this week, Obama acknowledged that private agreements with the Israelis on the settlements issue (such as the Bush administration’s in 2002) undermines American credibility in the peace process. “I think what is certainly true is that the United States has to follow through on what it says,” he said, adding that “it is important for us to be clear about what we believe will lead to peace and that there’s not equivocation and there’s not a sense that we expect only compromise on one side; it’s going to have to be two-sided.”

Indeed, today in his speech at Cairo University in Egypt, Obama said that both sides need to follow through with their commitments. “The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people…Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist,” he said. “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.”

It’s doubtful that Barack Obama has ever delivered a speech as hotly awaited as the one he gave today in Cairo. I had hoped but not expected that, having already generated some credibility on the issue with his firm stance against Israeli settlements, the president would use the opportunity to address the cynical exploitation of the conflict by Arab regimes. I was pleasantly surprised, then, to hear the president tell the Arab States they “must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities.”

The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel’s legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

Turning to Israel, Obama said that “Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s.” While past presidents have recognized Palestinian national aspirations, this is the first time I’ve ever heard an American president assert an equivalency between the right of the Jewish and Palestinian people to a homeland. I think the significance of this framing will not be lost on the regional audience.

I also found this part of the speech particularly compelling, especially in light of the attendance — apparently as the result of U.S. pressure — of members of the Muslim Brotherhood’s parliamentary bloc:

America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments — provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

I interpret this as a message to Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamist groups: Eschew violence and we will support your participation in politics. And his comment about elections could be interpreted as a dig at his Mubarak regime hosts — indeed, an audience member responded to the line by shouting “We love you!”

Obviously, this was one speech. Obama’s personal appeal and soaring rhetoric won’t matter much if he doesn’t follow it up with practical policies to create movement across the rather ambitious range of issues that he outlined. Viewed as the opening of a dialogue, and a restatement of American purpose in the region, however, I think it was an enormously encouraging one.