US rhetoric on Israeli settlements has shifted dramatically since President Obama's inauguration. In the first few months after January 20, Obama courted the world, successfully promoting an image of a cooperative, benevolent US. A key part of this was a sterner approach to Israel. Obama demonstrated this by unexpectedly demanding a halt to settlements during his first meeting with Netanyahu. Indeed, Obama mentioned multiple times during his campaign that he advocated a more balanced approach to Israel-Palestine. Six months after inauguration, Obama's Palestine strategy has converged with Bush's.
In late September, Obama dropped his demand for a settlement freeze with the neat explanation, "it is time to show the flexibility and sense of compromise that is necessary to achieve our goals." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed this issue in Morocco on Monday:
For 40 years, successive American administrations of both parties have opposed Israel's settlement policy. That is absolutely a fact. And the Obama administration's position on settlements is clear...The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. Now, the Israelis have responded to the call from the United States, the Palestinians, and the Arab world to stop settlement activity by expressing a willingness to restrain settlement activity. They will build no new settlements, expropriate no land, allow no new construction or approvals.
According to STRATFOR, this agreement to end new settlements is meaningless because Israel can interpret it however it wants.
The approval of such construction is an internal Israeli bureaucratic matter. Whether approval is given depends on the Israeli interpretation of what has been approved at this point. That is sufficient ambiguity to give the Israelis a great deal of latitude.
This is why Obama originally favored a total freeze on development within preexisting settlements. RealClearWorld reports that US officials privately say that brokering a total freeze would be much easier than the difficult project of monitoring the expansion of each settlement.
In some ways, Obama has actually damaged the Palestinian cause more than he has advanced it. Bassim Khoury, the former Palestinian Minister of Economy, recently told the Economist that Obama damaged Fatah's legitimacy by forcing President Abbas to meet with Netanyahu in New York. Obama brought Abbas together with Netanyahu only to inform him he was backing down on the settlements issue. Abbas was powerless to respond. This only supported the opinion of many Palestinians that Fatah is an incompetent negotiator without the backbone to stand up to Israel and the US. In fact, it is often suggested that Israel seeks to weaken Fatah because world opinion considers Hamas much less legitimate, giving Israel more options and freedom in its actions towards the Palestinian Authority. Obama also shot down Palestine's bid to be an Observer at the WTO (a meaningless position), something which Bush had promised the Palestinian Authority in 2005.
The change in tone on settlements reflects differing priorities rather than a differing attitude. Obama's "Re-imagining America Tour" is over. The priority now is Iran. In order to present a unified front against Iran, it is necessary to downplay any conflict between Israel and the US. Obama is likely personally more sympathetic to the Palestinians than past presidents, though the realities of politics will likely prevent this disposition from affecting policy during his presidency.
