The press almost unanimously
reported, and pundits almost unanimously
agreed, that the Secretary of State's comments in Jerusalem meant that
the Obama Administration had retreated on its position that a full
settlement freeze was a precondition for negotiations. This in turn
established the now dominant narrative that the Obama Administration's
peace effort is an abject failure, that Obama and Mitchell have been
bested by Netanyahu, and that the US has caved on settlements.
The problem is that the premise of this narrative - that the US had
demanded a total freeze as a precondition for negotiations - is
incorrect. Neither Obama nor any Obama Administration official ever
stated that a full settlement freeze was a precondition for
negotiations. One can debate whether they should have done so, or
whether they should have done a better job making clear what the policy
was or managing expectations, but it is simply inaccurate to state that
this was the Administration's policy.
It should surprise no one that the media and pundits prefer to view
Middle East peace effort through a lens of controversy. Reporting that
Mitchell took another trip and held more closed-door meetings is not
interesting. Saying that Clinton went to Jerusalem and nothing
happened is not news. (Likewise, the definition of "unprecedented" is
not especially newsworthy. For the record, the word
means "having no
previous example" - not, as some seem to think, "laudable,"
"fantastic," "satisfying our demands" or "consistent with US policy.")
