While the entire Mideast-centric wing of the foreign-policy community waits to see if the Obama administration will actually offer its own plan to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with an independent Palestinian state — to say nothing of the bated breath in Mideast capitals — Jim Jones, President Obama’s national security adviser, sounded warm, soothing tones last night about the U.S.-Israel relationship to a leading pro-Israel group, the center-right Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

“There has been a lot of distortion and misrepresentation of our policy recently,” Jones said, getting that out of the way. “We will never forget that since the first minutes of Israeli independence, the United States has had a special relationship with Israel. And that will not change.” And he continued on in that vein. It even got subtle: As Israel tries to rebrand itself as a tech-centric “start-up nation,” Jones said the U.S.-Israel bonds were “the bonds of pioneers in science, technology and so many fields where we cooperate every day.”

Bona fides affirmed, Jones’ speech attempted to thread several needles: convincing Israel and its American advocates that taking risks for a two-state solution right now is in both the Israeli and American interest; that the U.S. is about to take action on Israel’s enemy, Iran, and so Israel needs to reciprocate on the peace process; and that the Obama administration’s broader national security strategy — ensuring nations fulfill their international obligations and uphold the rights of their citizens as the key to global security, prosperity and dignity — is inextricably tied to Mideast peace. “We recognize that peace must be made by the parties and cannot be imposed from the outside,” Jones said, echoing a recent formulation of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. “At the same time, we understand that the status quo is not sustainable.” He called for the resumption of direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations — pointedly eliding the indirect talks the administration has for weeks tried to use as a bridge to direct talks:

So it is time to begin those negotiations and to put an end to excuses. It is time for all leaders in the region—Israeli, Palestinian, and Arab—to support efforts for peace. It is time for today’s leader to demonstrate the courage and leadership of Anwar Sadat, King Hussein, and Yitzhak Rabin.

That looks like the Fierce Urgency of Now again. Jones left hanging in the air the prospect of an Obama peace plan — he didn’t touch on the idea at all — but the thrust of his speech was about the need for concerted and immediate action on peace. The vectors point in the direction of such an Obama peace plan if those talks don’t get underway, and Jones closed by emphasizing that the Obama administration isn’t going to relent on Mideast peace: “This is the work we will continue to pursue in the months and years ahead… not only for the sake of America’s security, but for the world’s.”

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.

Ghattas: You took a risk in escalating the tone with Israel last week, I understand the relationship is solid but the Israelis could have said we never promised restraint on settlments in east Jerusalem,- is the risk paying off?

Clinton: I think we’re going to see the resumption of the negotiation track and that means that it is paying off because that’s our goal. Let’s get the parties into a discussion, let’s [get] the principle issues on the table and let’s begin to explore ways that we can resolve the differences.

She also poured cold water on the idea that the U.S. is trying to destabilize Netanyahu’s governing coalition.

Recalling that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community, the Quartet underscores that the status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties and condemns the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem. The Quartet re-affirms its intention to closely monitor developments in Jerusalem and to keep under consideration additional steps that may be required to address the situation on the ground.

So much for Jackson Diehl’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” on Jerusalem settlement construction.

So what did Netanyahu tell Clinton? No one knows right now, but Mitchell’s trip is back on. Jackson Diehl at The Washington Post is under the impression that the Israelis are proposing a don’t-ask-don’t-tell bargain on settlement construction: the Israelis pledge not to build in East Jerusalem for another couple of years; the U.S. pledges not to be the strictest building inspector. Who knows? It’s not implausible, but Diehl isn’t exactly transparent about whether he’s reporting this out or analyzing what’s going on.

Interestingly, President Obama’s poll numbers among the Israeli public are rebounding, according to a new Ha’aretz poll, with most seeing him as “fair or friendly.”

A letter sent today from Rudy DeLeon, a former senior Pentagon official who serves as CAP’s foreign policy chief, to the Israel Policy Forum’s leaders explained the merger would support the Obama administration’s flagging efforts to restart Israeli-Palestinian negotiations for Palestinian statehood. “Uniting our efforts under the banner of Middle East Progress would leverage our ability to support U.S. policy, bring pragmatic voices into the debate and develop public support for sustained U.S. peacemaking efforts in the region,” DeLeon wrote. Middle East Progress plans to launch “events, publications and communications, trips to the region, and outreach” over the next year, and the Center for American Progress has “committed one third” of the bolstered organization’s budget.

An email from IPF’s Nick Bunzl to the organization’s supporters containing a copy of DeLeon’s letter stated, “The IPF team is very excited to be joining these and our other new colleagues in our shared mission ‘of supporting a comprehensive Middle East peace, including a two-state solution with a strong Israel and a viable Palestinian state.’”

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs just released this statement:

We are dismayed at the Jerusalem Planning Committee’s decision to move forward on the approval process for the expansion of Gilo in Jerusalem. At a time when we are working to re-launch negotiations, these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed. Neither party should engage in efforts or take actions that could unilaterally pre-empt, or appear to pre-empt, negotiations. The U.S. also objects to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes. Our position is clear: the status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties.

The Israelis have been difficult, as always: whenever [Special Envoy George] Mitchell raises East Jerusalem in talks with the Israeli Foreign Minister, the Israeli stands up and walks out of the room.

“All hopes placed in the new U.S. administration and President Obama have evaporated,” said the document issued by Fatah’s Office of Mobilization and Organization. The department is headed Fatah’s No. 2, Mohammed Ghneim.

Obama, it claimed, “couldn’t withstand the pressure of the Zionist lobby, which led to a retreat from his previous positions on halting settlement construction and defining an agenda for the negotiations and peace.”

This ought to be one seriously grueling State Department briefing. Where’s that George Mitchell peace plan?