To Freeze or not to Freeze

President Obama’s moves on Israeli settlements seem a bit puzzling. For much of the year, the United States was pressing for a freeze. Then it seemed to let up a bit. At the United Nations on September 23, 2009, Obama called on the Palestinians “to end incitement against Israel.” But he did not call on Israel to freeze or end settlement expansion. Rather, he stated “we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”  Even Bibi commended Obama’s UN speech. Secretary Clinton’s statement in Israel on October 31 added to the softer sentiment: “What the Prime Minister has offered in specifics of a restraint on the policy of settlements which he has just described - no new starts for example, is unprecedented in the context of prior to negotiations.”

Many were ready to pronounce the U.S. effort over (and a failure).

Then, this week, the tension returned with cold atmospherics around a meeting with Netanyahu. Why the back and forth in U.S. freeze moves? (Is this meant as some kind of good cop, bad cop routine?) Did President Abbas’s resignation threat really shake things up or catch U.S. officials off guard? Were Obama officials unaware that letting Netanyahu off the hook on a complete freeze might spark Palestinian discontent? One hopes for a better chess game on the part of U.S. officials.