Ad for The Awakening 2012 (Photo: Tea Party Manatee)

The Freedom Federation, a network of conservative faith-based organizations, will host its “Awakening 2012″ event in Orlando next year, featuring a long list of big conservative names as “invited speakers.”

Presidential hopefuls Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry have all been invited to Awakening, which will take place April 19-21 at Calvary Assembly in Winter Park. According to the group’s website, Republicans Sen. Marco Rubio, Rep. Allen West and Gov. Rick Scott have also been invited to speak, but have not yet been confirmed.

Other invited speakers include: Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; Live Action founder Lila Rose, and James “Jim Bob” Duggar, subject of the TLC reality series 19 Kids and Counting.

John Stemberger, president of the Florida Family Policy Council, is a confirmed speaker, along with Frank Gaffney, who penned a controversial op-ed insinuating that President Obama was “America’s first Muslim president.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also been confirmed to address the rally via video feed.

Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich made an appearance at the 2011 Awakening event, telling more than 100 faith-based leaders that House Republicans should not compromise on fundamentals because the budget is a “moral battle.”

“It is inconceivable in many ways that we would have to even argue and debate whether or not Israelis could live in Israel, not just in parts of Israel but anywhere in Israel they wished to live,” Huckabee added. “I cannot imagine as an American being told that I could not live in certain places in America because I was Christian, or because I was white, or because I spoke English. I would be outraged if someone told me that in my country, I would be prohibited and forbidden to live in a part of that country, for any reason.” #

Israel Science and Technology Minister Daniel Hershkowitz also spoke at the ceremony and asserted that construction in Jerusalem is “not an impediment to peace, it brings it closer,” adding that the more Israel builds “the more peace there will be.” #

As reported by Haaretz: #

“That is why this neighborhood is only the cornerstone. It will serve as a model for the resurgence of Jerusalem’s construction swing,” Hershkowitz said. #

Also addressing the crowd, Jerusalem’s Deputy Mayor David Harari said that the “housing units to be built here are only the beginning of the road,” adding that talks were underway “to turn it into a substantial neighborhood.” #

Earlier this month, Haaretz learned that the Jerusalem planning commission was expected to approve a new large-scale construction project beyond the Green Line. #

The plan, called Gilo: Southern Slopes, includes the construction of 1,400 housing units on an area between the neighborhood of Gilo toward the Cremisan Monastery, and the settlement of Har Gilo. It is expected to draw widespread international criticism. #

Huckabee, a Fox News personality and likely 2012 GOP presidential candidate, who in 2007 claimed “there’s no such thing as a Palestinian,” was joined by actor and tea party favorite Jon Voight in a three-day visit hosted by the Jerusalem Reclamation Project, a group whose focus is to promote Jewish settlements. Both Huckabee and Voight will be meeting with Israeli officials, including Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as touring existing housing units. #

In a meeting with reporters, the former evangelical minister dismissed the notion that Israel should relinquish land for peace, calling it an “unrealistic, unworkable and unreachable goal.” #

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports: #

Most of the international community — including President Barack Obama — considers Jewish settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem illegal because they are built on occupied land Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast war. The Palestinians claim both areas for a future state. #

Huckabee suggested that [if] a Palestinian state were to be established, it shouldn’t come at Israel’s expense. #

“There are vast amounts of territory that are in the hands of Muslims, in the hands of Arabs. Maybe the international community can come together and accommodate,” he said. #

Huckabee also claimed that any peace agreement has to recognize that “the Jewish people have indigenous rights to the land in which they occupy and live and it goes back not 60 years or 80 years but it goes back 3,500 years.” #

The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, B’Tselem, states that international law clearly defines the Jewish settlements in the West Bank as illegal: #

The establishment of settlements in the West Bank violates international humanitarian law which establishes principles that apply during war and occupation. Moreover, the settlements lead to the infringement of international human rights law. #

The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit an occupying power from undertaking permanent changes in the occupied area unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population. #

The establishment of settlements results in the violation of the rights of Palestinians as enshrined in international human rights law. Among other violations, the settlements infringe the right to self-determination, equality, property, an adequate standard of living, and freedom of movement. #

#

Gaza, of course, is under an Israeli blockade and controlled by the rejectionist group Hamas, which the U.S. won’t talk to until it ceases rejecting the peace process and the existence of Israel. Within those parameters, any aid package has to depend on external and diplomatic circumstances to reach Gaza. The $400 million Obama announced will go through Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who don’t have sway over Gaza or its 1.5 million residents.  So the administration labeled them “a down payment on the United States’ commitment to Palestinians in Gaza, who deserve a better life and expanded opportunities, and the chance to take part in building a viable, independent state of Palestine, together with those who live in the West Bank.”

The White House called the siege of Gaza “unsustainable” in a press release, and says it demands “a significant change of strategy.” In what direction? The administration pledged to “work with our partners in the Palestinian Authority, Israel, Egypt, and the international community to put such a strategy in place.” In other words, the administration either has no idea or isn’t prepared to tell Israel to lift the siege.

But here are the “down payment” initiatives, as per a White House fact sheet:

A $240 million investment by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) in the AMAL mortgage finance program in the West Bank, which is designed to increase homeownership by offering long-term mortgages at fixed- and variable rates.

· $75 million in funding through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to support the Palestinian Authority’s work to improve infrastructure throughout the West Bank and Gaza.

· $10 million in USAID-funded activities aimed at enhancing the Palestinian private sector’s competitiveness.

· $40 million to support UNRWA’s Emergency Appeal for Gaza and the West Bank, which will help improve educational and health services, increase job creation, and repair shelters in Gaza, while also addressing core humanitarian needs in the West Bank.

· $14.5 million in USAID projects for school rehabilitation, small-scale agriculture, the repair of a hospital facility and other community infrastructure in Gaza.

· $10 million for the construction of five new UNRWA schools in Gaza.

· $5 million to start nine USAID-funded projects to repair water distribution and wastewater collection systems in Gaza.

Abbas needs to bring home “a means of easing the siege on Gaza that helps the ordinary people but does not help Hamas politically or in terms of PR,” said Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow with the American Task Force on Palestine. But Abbas isn’t wedded to any specific mechanism for lifting the siege. “ATFP has been saying since the borders were closed in 2007 that the best way to open them is to have PA forces with international monitoring, supervision and participation on the Palestinian side, combined with a major effort to shut down the smuggling tunnels,” Ibish continued. Carnegie’s Henri Berkey thinks that such a plan is in both the Israeli and Palestinian Authority interest.

But Gaza is an inflection point for the fragile peacemaking efforts of the administration. It’ll be up to Obama to expand the Gaza crisis into a full-fledged strategy for negotiations. That’s what Abbas needs Obama to say today. “He needs [Obama] to reassure the Palestinians that even use all his leverage, especially his new leverage after his partial defense of Israel from international pressure over the flotilla attack, to move them into a more serious engagement on the real issues in the negotiations,” Ibish said. “He needs deeper understandings with the United States on the need to pressure Israel to really engage with permanent status issues and not just procedural matters or minor matters like water in the proximity talks.”

To some degree, the real test of Abbas’ visit won’t come today. It’ll come when his Israeli counterpart, Benjamin Netanyahu, arrives in Washington. Abbas doesn’t have the power to ease the siege of Gaza. And he doesn’t have the power to expand the aperture of the proximity talks. The past year-plus of Netanyahu’s tenure as premier has seen Netanyahu resist Obama’s power to press Israel on peacemaking. So what will Netanyahu say to Obama?

Eighty five percent (85%) of the respondents indicated that Israel either did not use enough force (39%) or used the right amount of force (46%) regarding the recent ship boarding incident. Only eight percent (8%) felt the Israelis used too much force.  Sixty one percent (61%) felt that Israel should not adjust its tactics to elicit a more favorable international reaction.

Seventy three percent (73%) of those polled indicated that Israel should not open up Gaza to international humanitarian shipments. A majority of those polled, fifty six percent (56%) indicated that Israel should not agree to an international inquiry committee to investigate the incident.

Recall that President Obama did not join the rest of the world in condemning the raid. But it appears that Israelis expected him to support it:

Seventy one percent (71%) disliked U.S. President Barack Obama with forty seven percent (47%) expressing a strong dislike. In all, sixty three percent (63%) of those polled were dissatisfied with the American government’s reaction to the incident.

Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas will ask President Barack Obama Wednesday for “bold decisions” on the Middle East but US-led peace moves face a torrid climate after Israel’s Gaza flotilla raid.

Obama will welcome Abbas to the White House seeking to ensure regional fury over the May 31 Israeli commando strike does not doom indirect Israel-Palestinian talks that took months for Washington to organize.

He will also discuss American efforts to break through a “status-quo” on the blockaded Gaza Strip, which his administration describes as “untenable” following the deadly Israeli maritime raid, which killed nine Turks.

“Bold moves.” Breaking through the Gaza “status quo.” If all of that sounds vague and tentative, some Mideast watchers think that’s because the post-flotilla atmosphere between Israel, the West Bank-only Palestinian Authority and the Obama administration is marked primarily by confusion. Even after the raid, Obama may want Abbas to show an openness to moving beyond the indirect “proximity talks” — whereby George Mitchell, the administration’s envoy for Mideast peace, plays a game of telephone to convey messages between the Israelis, the Palestinians and the Americans — and to direct negotiations. And in this op-ed for The Hill, Abbas loudly proclaims his desire for dialogue — without specifics about the form that dialogue should take. But after the raid, can Abbas really sell his people on the idea of moving more aggressively in the direction of talks with the Israelis?

“I’m not so sure that any of the actors here is exactly sure what they want, or what they can go in expecting,” said Lucy Kurtzer-Ellenbogen, an Arab-Israeli conflict specialist at the U.S. Institute of Peace who just returned from a trip last week to Israel and the West Bank. “You have that with [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, where I don’t think he knows what he wants or what his next move is, I’m not sure the Obama administration does, and I don’t think Abbas does. And partly everyone is hoping the other side is going to come in and provide the solution.” She described the diplomatic climate ahead of Abbas’s visit as “collective breathholding.”

This is the first presidential meeting since the flotilla crisis. Obama will meet with Netanyahu soon after, following a charm offensive by the Obama administration to publicly proclaim Netanyahu as a partner. Obama and Abbas can talk about ways to perhaps get Netanyahu to ease the Gaza siege. But what will Netanyahu say?

Henri Barkey, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Middle East Program, had an idea for Israel to turn the diplomatic tables on Hamas for the first time since establishing the Gaza blockade. They can reiterate their call for Hamas to release captured soldier Gilad Shalit; rely on international assurances against Hamas-driven attacks from across the border in Gaza; and then lifting the blockade. “You put this as your condition, and then you put Hamas in the corner,” Barkey said at a morning meeting at the U.S. Institute of Peace. “Because then Hamas will have to decide whether to accept these things, and you completely shift the discourse.”

Speaking of the Israelis, though, Barkey said, “I don’t know why they’re not doing it. To me that’s a no-lose situation, because the onus is on the other side. And then you ask for international guarantees, so you can say that if a rocket gets fired [into Israel] then Hamas will have to live with the consequences internationally.”

It’s a long study, with seven authors, and I’ve barely made a crack in it, so I won’t try to summarize the specific recommendations. But CNAS, looking at recent cases of international peacekeeping forces in transitional states or autonomous provinces, examines what security conditions need to be met for a viable independent Palestine that doesn’t threaten Israel to come into being.

Israel generally has balked over the years at the prospect of international peacekeeping forces patrolling the West Bank, as such a force would limit Israel’s freedom of military action in occupied Palestine. (Andrew Exum, one of the studies’ authors, lists a short host of reasons why Israel shouldn’t have a problem with such a force while — at least in the introduction — glossing over the fact that it does.) But less important than any specific recommendation is the fact that the think tank that has launched many an official into the Obama Pentagon and State Department, CNAS, is expending any intellectual heft on the issue at all, let along thinking through the modalities of interim internationalization of West Bank/Jordan River Valley security. Such a detailed study, coming in advance of a potential Obama peace plan — which the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu definitely does not want — will most likely be read at the Israeli embassy and in Jerusalem as a sign that a real U.S. push on a two-state solution is gathering momentum.

And it reaffirms a linkage that some on the American Jewish right and the Israeli government don’t want to see made. “Although peace in the Middle East is hardly the exclusive responsibility of the United States,” Exum writes in the introduction, “it is a goal long sought by its political leaders and one inextricably linked to U.S. interests.” That viewpoint was roundly mocked as simplistic at the AIPAC conference this year, despite it being the stated policy of decades of American administrations.

As a consolation measure, informed sources explain, Nazarbayev plans to explain to Netanyahu about the inferior quality of all other nations’ potassium supplies.

Ignatius reports that it would take a wide, regional focus:

The American peace plan would be linked with the issue of confronting Iran, which is Israel’s top priority, explained the second senior official. He described the issues as two halves of a single strategic problem: “We want to get the debate away from settlements and East Jerusalem and take it to a 30,000-feet level that can involve Jordan, Syria and other countries in the region,” as well as the Israelis and Palestinians.

“Incrementalism hasn’t worked,” continued the second official, explaining that the United States cannot allow the Palestinian problem to keep festering — providing fodder for Iran and other extremists. “As a global power with global responsibilities, we have to do something.” He said the plan would “take on the absolute requirements of Israeli security and the requirements of Palestinian sovereignty in a way that makes sense.”

This has apparently come with the aid of foreign-policy greybeards from both parties, like Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Sandy Berger, Frank Carlucci, Robert MacFarlane and Colin Powell. The administration certainly leaked that to frame this prospective initiative as a consensus view. (Because, frankly, it is.)

That, and the other specificity cited by Ignatius — the administration could start interagency discussions modeled on the Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy and unveil a plan by the fall — support the initial judgment that this has already been well-discussed internally. On the other hand, it could be a shot across Netanyahu’s bow, telling him that if he doesn’t take some confidence-building measures — and soon — the Obama administration will launch its own very big peacemaking agenda, and that’s not going to be something Israel will want to be viewed as opposing.

The Obama administration shifted this week from red hot anger at Benjamin Netanyahu to an icier suspicion toward the Israeli Prime Minister, who made clear in a marathon of meetings with U.S. officials that he would give ground only grudgingly on their goal of stopping the continued construction of new Israeli housing units on disputed territory.

Netanyahu met with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office Tuesday evening for an unexpectedly-long 89-minutes until about 7:00, then stayed to consult with his own staff in the Roosevelt Room, according to a source briefed on the meeting. The two then met again for 35 minutes at 8:20 at Netanyahu’s request, the source said. But the meetings were shrouded in unusual secrecy, in part because U.S. officials, who just ten days earlier called the surprise announcement of new housing in East Jerusalem an “insult” and an “affront,” made sure to reward Netanyahu with a series of small snubs: There were no photographs released from the meeting, and no briefing for the press.

Just before the meeting, a Jerusalem council announced another new settlement past the portion of the city that the international community accepts as Israeli territory.