I Am Not So Sure This Is True

Writing on TAPped yesterday, Mori Dinauer commented on Obama's demand for a settlement freeze thusly:

Laura Rozen shares Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's reaction to the Obamaadministration's tough stand against expanding Israeli settlements, as well as Netanyahu's surprise that unlike past presidential administrations, Obama's isn't passively yielding to the Israeli position. I think moments like this serve as a good example that claims of the deep influence of the "Israel Lobby" on U.S. foreign policy are the result of a reputation for influence, rather than influence itself.

Now, this was a throwaway sentence, not a cogent argument, but I'd like to hear this teased out more, because on its face, I don't think there's much evidence that the Israel Lobby's influence is merely via reputation. This is evidence that Obama is willing to play toughish (more on that later) with certain issues with Israel, but that actually says nothing about the relative power of the Israel Lobby other than they're not all powerful.  

Of course, it's also worth mentioning that where we are in the conversation about Israel and Settlements right now reflects the entrenched power of the pro-Israel lobby as well as the overtly zionist slant of US politics. The settlements are illegal. Not some of them.  All of them. They are part of an illegal post-1967 land grab.  Obama is telling Israel to stop breaking the law for its own sake, but no one is even whispering about redressing the forty years of lawbreaking that have gotten us to this point. I think it's great that Obama and Clinton are getting serious about settlement growth but it is worth noting that somewhere down the line, dismantling them is going to have to get seriously discussed if the two state solution is ever going to happen.