In the words of one Congress Member:

"My concern is that we are applying pressure to the wrong party in this dispute," said Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.). "I think it would serve America’s interest better if we were pressuring the Iranians to eliminate the potential of a nuclear threat from Iran, and less time pressuring our allies and the only democracy in the Middle East to stop the natural growth of their settlements." "When Congress gets back into session the administration is going to hear from many more members than just me," she said.

The people who appear to be fiercely against "tough talk" with Israel, aren't republicans. They appear to be democrats.

"There’s a line between articulating U.S. policy and seeming to be pressuring a democracy on what are their domestic policies, and the president is tiptoeing right up to that line," said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), who said he’d heard complaints from constituents during the congressional recess. "I would have liked to hear the president talk more about the Palestinian obligation to cut down on terrorism." "I don’t think anybody wants to dictate to an ally what they have to do in their own national security interests," said Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), who said he thinks there’s "room for compromise." "I have to hear specifically from the administration exactly how they define their terms and is there room for defining the terms," he said, referring to the terms "settlement" and "natural growth."

That said, Obama is not backing down on this issue, even if the likelihood becomes apparent that he will be a one-term president.

"I don't think we have to change strong support for Israel," Obama said. "We do have to retain a constant belief in the possibilities of negotiations that will lead to peace. And that's going to require, from my view, a two-state solution." "Part of being a good friend is being honest," Obama said. "And I think there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory, in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but also U.S. interests. And that's part of a new dialogue that I'd like to see encouraged in the region." The pro-Israel lobby AIPAC last week got the signatures of 329 members of Congress, including key figures in both parties, on a letter calling on the administration to work "closely and privately" with Israel — in contrast to the current public pressure.

Though, it appears one of the only few backing up Obama on the issue of settlements, appears to be his former campaign partner, Robert Wexler of Florida.

Wexler, an early Obama ally and a staunch defender of his Middle East policy, said in his view, the settlement freeze should apply only to settlements outside Israel’s security fence, or wall, and should exclude territory that appears likely to ultimately remain part of Israel. "To expect Israel to have the same policy outside the security fence as inside the security fence is unrealistic; it’s counterproductive," he said. "I don’t think [the administration’s] public statements have been specific enough" to resolve the question of whether they were referring to all settlements or only settlements outside the barrier, Wexler said. "I’m comfortable with the whole package," Wexler said, pointing to pressure on Iran and demands for "visible and concrete steps toward normalization" and improved security in the Palestinian territories, as well as demands for a settlement freeze. "Bibi Netanyahu can’t be expected to perform his obligations if the broader Arab world is not willing to take serious steps toward normalizing relations with Israel," he said.

I have to say, this type of behavior from Congress, while typical during previous administrations, is absolutely disgusting when an American President is attempting to reign in Netanyahu and the likudniks. We must back up Obama on this, it is absolutely essential for peace and for Israel's long term security.