Americans for Peace Now’s Lara Friedman analyzes Bibi Netanyahu’s latest thumb in the Obama administration’s (and the Abbas government’s, and the international community’s) eye, the authorization of 900 new homes in the East Jerusalem settlement of Gilo. “This is a crisis engineered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,” Friedman writes, one “intended to create a head-on collision with the Obama Administration over Jerusalem.”

[W]hile Bibi had a number of “conventional” options for dealing with the issue, he chose to go nuclear by making this issue — and his defiance of US concerns — a top story. In doing so, he has undermined the prospects for the very negotiations he claims he wants. [...]

The plan, if implemented, will allow the construction of 844 units, and these units won’t be inside the existing footprint of the settlement. Rather, they will be on the settlement’s southwestern flank, expanding Gilo in the direction of the Palestinian village of Wallajeh (a village in which a large number of the homes are fighting Israeli demolition orders). This new Gilo plan clearly dovetails with another plan to build a new settlement, called Givat Yael, which would straddle the Jerusalem border and significantly extend Israeli Jerusalem to the south, further sealing the city off from the Bethlehem area and the West Bank (and connecting it to the Etzion settlement bloc). That plan, it was reported yesterday, also appears to be suddenly gaining steam. (for a map showing both the Gilo plan and Givat Yael, click here.)

The Gilo plan is thus extremely provocative on several levels. It represents a clear and public statement from the Netanyahu government that it is neither “freezing” nor acting with “restraint” in East Jerusalem. It compels the Palestinians to respond, just as it compels other regional actors to respond. Finally, it has important strategic implications, since the plan, implemented, would impact on border options for Jerusalem under a future peace agreement.

Israel’s Yedioth Ahronoth reported — and a U.S. official confirmed – that Obama administration envoy George Mitchell had asked an aide to Netanyahu at a meeting in London on Monday to block the proposed construction in East Jerusalem. This latest affront comes less than a week after President Obama met with Netanyahu for 70 minutes in the White House.

Writing in yesterday’s New York Times, Roger Cohen suggested that recent history “makes clear that the right-wing government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu won’t deviate from the pattern of settlement growth established since 1967.” The U.S. has its own history of recognizing the illegitimacy of the settlements, and recognizing the role that they play in powering Palestinian resentment and violence, while never undertaking serious measures to pressure Israel to curb them. The Obama administration showed admirable clarity at the outset about these things, but then refused to stand strong behind its demand that Israel abide by its previous commitments to halt settlement growth, and its credibility has suffered for it.

The administration has certainly made its own mistakes on this issue, and I think the Palestinians have been unwise in refusing to negotiate without a complete settlement freeze. But we need to recognize that Netanyahu’s intransigence, born of an ideological commitment to seizing as much Palestinian land as possible, is a huge part of the problem here. Add this to his tendency to provoke crises and humiliate his country’s key patron, the United States, at almost every opportunity, I wonder when the Obama administration will simply stop pretending that Netanyahu is a partner for peace.

Last week, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) came out in strong support of Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to prosecute the five 9/11 defendants in U.S. federal court and sharply criticized Republicans who were attacking the decision. “They will seize on any opportunity to [demagogue], and that means they’ll even take a stand that’s un-American. It’s un-American to hold anyone indefinitely without trial. It’s against our principles as a nation.”

Former Bush attorney general Michael Mukasey is one of the Republicans who has been speaking out against Holder. Last week at a Federalist Society conference, Mukasey said that holding the trial in Manhattan increased the risk of a terrorist attack on the city.

In an interview with Washington Times radio this morning, the hosts asked Mukasey about Moran’s comments. Mukasey responded by suggesting that the congressman “get professional help” from Maj. Nidal Hasan:

Q: Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia says anybody that questions KSM coming to New York City for a civilian trial — that they’re un-American. What is your reaction to that?

MUKASEY: I think he’s lost touch with reality. He ought to get professional help, perhaps from Maj. Nidal.

The segment then ends with the hosts laughing over Mukasey’s “joke.” Listen here:

Nidal, of course, is the Army psychiatrist suspected of going on a brutal rampage at Fort Hood and killing 13 people.

Asked for a response to Mukasey’s comments, Moran’s spokesperson Emily Blout said, “Leading conservative activists and scholars agree with Mr. Moran’s position, which is based on this nation’s long history of upholding its most fundamental values- even in the face of horrific crimes.”

Given that the charge that President Obama is “dithering” on Afghanistan originated with former Vice President Dick Cheney, one can and should dismiss it out of hand as a transparent attempt to distract Americans from the fact that the Bush-Cheney administration vastly under-resourced the U.S.-led effort there for the last five years. But it’s also worth pointing out that, as it has conducted its deep review of options in Afghanistan, the president and his team haven’t simply been sitting around talking. They’ve been working with and encouraging and cajoling our partners in the Pakistan and Afghanistan government to step up and play a more positive role. And they’ve made it clear to both governments that a demonstrated willingness to do that will influence the president’s decision on U.S. troop and resource commitments to the effort.

On Sunday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton again made it clear that Hamid Karzai’s government must do more to eliminate corruption if he wanted continued civilian aid from Washington. Government corruption at all levels has been a huge problem in Afghanistan, preventing the state from establishing any genuine legitimacy and powering the resentment that feeds the Taliban insurgency.

Yesterday, the government of Afghanistan “announced new anticorruption measures in response to pressure from Washington and its allies, unveiling a special task force that will investigate graft by senior officials”:

“This force will make sure no high-ranking official who is involved in corruption will go unpunished,” said Interior Minister Hanif Atmar, accompanied by the U.S. and British ambassadors to Kabul. The new body will get training and support from the European Union and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, officials said.

The task force, which began operating in recent days, has netted three high-ranking government officials and charged them with stealing money meant for the families of policemen killed in the line of duty, said Amrullah Saleh, chief of Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security. He didn’t identify the detained men beyond saying that one of them was a general.

Obviously, simply creating a new anti-corruption unit and making some arrests isn’t the same as actually “fighting corruption,” but it’s a positive step. As with the Pakistan Army’s move against Taliban redoubts in Waziristan, a sustained commitment on the part of the Afghanistan will significantly impact the ability of the U.S.-led coalition to roll back the Taliban and stabilize the country. Karzai’s move is a welcome one, though, and should be recognized as the result of the successful use of American leverage by the Obama administration to elicit a positive change in behavior — as well as proof that the administration’s hawkish critics continue to be best ignored.

When the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) President J. Richard Cohen appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s show this past summer and called on CNN to fire Lou Dobbs over his inaccurate immigration reporting, O’Reilly advised Cohen to stop wasting his time. O’Reilly was so sure Dobbs would never be fired from CNN that he was willing to bet Cohen $10,000:

O’REILLY: CNN is never going to fire him, you know that…

COHEN: I’m not quite as cynical as you are Bill. I think that if enough people speak out, CNN will listen and be more responsible in the future.

O’REILLY: You wanna bet?…I’ve got ten grand for Habitat for Humanity on the table if you wanna bet me.

COHEN: How about ten grand for the Southern Poverty Law Center?

O’REILLY: But I’m not going to take your money. There’s no real bet there — he’s not going to get fired.

Watch it:

In an open letter addressed to O’Reilly that was posted yesterday, Cohen states “You lost the bet. Time to pay up!” Granted, O’Reilly’s commitment to the bet was tepid, at best — but Cohen points out that “in the court of public opinion, you lose.” Cohen cites Dobbs’ $8 million severance package as proof that Dobbs didn’t just get “fed up and quit.”

Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor featured a friendly interview with Dobbs last night in which O’Reilly suggested that Dobbs’ departure had nothing to do with responsible journalism, and more to do with CNN not wanting to offend the President. Dobbs clarified that CNN had a problem with his “advocacy journalism” and agreed to “come back on a semi-regular basis.”

Since Attorney General Eric Holder announced his decision to move five Guantanamo Bay detainees — including Khalid Sheikh Mohammad — to New York for civilian trials on charges related to the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, Fox News personalities have been up in arms. Karl Rove called it a “long-standing plot” by the Obama administration’s “left-wing lawyers who do not love America.”

But last night on Fox, the network’s top legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano — who has been known to disagree with Fox’s right-wing narratives on legal issues — disputed that view, citing the constitutional right to be tried in the place where the crime has been committed. “I don’t care about the Constitution!” host Bill O’Reilly responded. The debate continued:

O’REILLY: So why is he entitled to come to New York City to be tried in the civilian criminal court if he’s arrested in Pakistan?

NAPOLITANO: Because the document you don’t want me to talk about says when the government is going to prosecute you, it must do so in the place where the alleged harm was caused.

Later in the program, Fox analyst Brit Hume said he’d “been scouring the columns of various people opining about this to see if somebody makes a good argument for doing it,” adding, “And I really haven’t heard one.” Hume then noted Napolitano’s opinion and said, “I’m not certain I agree with that.” Watch it:

Holder’s “bold and principled” decision was “a victory for the rule of law and the American system of justice,” the Center for American Progress’ Ken Gude said.

“If you are accused, you get to know what you know what you are accused of, you get to face your accusers, and you get to defend yourself in court, and then you face a trial and a conviction. This is who we are as a system,” said Tom Andrews, director of the National Campaign to Close Guantanamo. “The Taliban? You can get a trial and a beheading in a few hours. That’s not our system of justice.”

Read more about Holder’s decision in today’s Progress Report.

As the President Obama continues his first trip to Asia, prepares to order more troops to Afghanistan, and completes his eighth month in office, it’s worth looking back on the foreign policy campaign pledges candidate Obama made in the pages of Foreign Affairs in mid-2007. There, candidate Obama set himself and the nation a set of goals to accomplish in his first term. While we shouldn’t expect President Obama to have met all of these commitments in only eight months — for one, some are highly dependent on the reaction of fickle governments elsewhere — we can use these benchmarks to determine how far along the Obama administration has come on its foreign policy.

1.“[B]ring the Iraq war to a responsible end.”

Partially met. Outlined a plan to withdraw all U.S. troops by end of 2011, in accordance with U.S.-Iraq security agreement. Iraqi national elections are to occur in January 2010, after which U.S. troops will draw down to 50,000 by August 2010.

2.”[L]aunch a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative to help broker an end to the civil war in Iraq.”

Unmet. No overt movement toward a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative to help resolve internal political conflicts in Iraq has occurred.

3.“[F]ocus our attention and influence on resolving the festering conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians”

Partially met. Appointed former Senator George Mitchell as senior envoy on Middle East peace, but has achieved little in terms of Israelis and Palestinians keeping their previous commitments or returning to the negotiating table.

4.“Although we must not rule out using military force, we should not hesitate to talk directly to Iran.”

Incomplete. Engaged Iran in serious direct negotiations on its nuclear program and engaged in public diplomacy, but has not received a positive or constructive response yet from Tehran.

5.“Diplomacy combined with pressure could also reorient Syria away from its radical agenda to a more moderate stance”

Incomplete. The administration has engaged Syria at the assistant secretary and special envoy levels, but results remain unclear. Additionally, Administration officials have stated a desire to send an ambassador to Syria, but none has been sent so far. However, the U.S. military held talks in August with Syrian officials on Syria-Iraq border control issues.

6.“[E]xpand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines”

Met. The Bush administration implemented this increase. Secretary of Defense Gates has since announced an expansion of the Army by 22,000 more troops.

7.“[W]ork with other nations to secure, destroy, and stop the spread of these weapons in order to dramatically reduce the nuclear dangers for our nation and the world. America must lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years — the most effective way to prevent terrorists from acquiring a bomb.”

Partially met. The administration has achieved outline agreement on replacement for START treaty with Russia, with negotiations currently underway. Serious engagement underway on Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs. President Obama has pledged ratification of Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but no action has yet been taken in the Senate. The review conference for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is upcoming in 2010. Read more