Hillary Clinton’s shameless praise of Israel’s settlement policies in the occupied Palestinian territories deserves more than Arab and Palestinian outrage. The US Secretary of State had brushed aside a fundamental principle in the decades-old quest to reach a just political settlement between Israel and the Palestinians; the illegality of Jewish settlements. By stating that a settlement freeze is not a precondition for restarting peace talks and that the issue has always been subject to negotiations, she had single-handedly shifted the course, and outcome, of future talks.

It was a major departure from decades of confirmed US position on the legality of Jewish settlement activities in the occupied territories. Whether it was a gaffe or a bona fide change in official US policy, Clinton attempted to soften the blow from her Jerusalem statements a day later when she arrived in Marrakesh to meet a number of Arab foreign ministers. She said that the administration’s position had not changed and that “the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

But in reality there is a basic change in Washington’s position. By insisting that the resumption of peace negotiations should be unconditional, which is exactly what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is calling for, Clinton is changing the framework of these talks. Instead of sticking to President Barack Obama’s earlier pledges that settlement construction must stop, she now believes Israel’s ambiguous and nonbinding offer to put a freeze on new projects in the West Bank is “unprecedented.” Meanwhile, Israel will go ahead with plans to build more than 3,000 new units in various settlements in the West Bank, excluding ongoing expansion in East Jerusalem.

The code word here is preconditions. Clinton agrees with Netanyahu’s position; that resumption of peace talks should not be linked to Palestinian caveats; i.e. preconditions, such as building of settlements, uprooting Palestinians from East Jerusalem and threatening the status of Muslim holy places in Al-Haram Al-Sharif.

From political and legal viewpoints the Palestinian stand makes perfect sense. After almost two decades of prolonged and tedious peace negotiations the Palestinians are eager to conclude these talks in a way that achieves the minimum of national aspirations: Full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, repatriation of Palestinian refugees and the creation of an independent and sovereign state with East Jerusalem as its capital.

With over 300,000 Jewish settlers living permanently in the West Bank and over 190,000 now residing in East Jerusalem, the Palestinian objective is in jeopardy. The integrity of the future Palestinian state will never be achieved unless Jewish settlements are removed. A contiguous Palestinian state, which is what the US administration had promised, is already in doubt as a result of the Israeli barrier wall, tens of settlements and land expropriated for security reasons.

For many years US officials were content to describe the building of settlements in the occupied areas as an obstacle to peace. And now in Clinton’s view it is an issue that negotiators will have to resolve among themselves. This is an insult to every Palestinian. To presume that both parties will find a satisfactory solution to this “obstacle” within the framework of future negotiations is simply stupid.

The reality is that Washington has opted to turn its back to Obama’s commitments. The White House is in no mood for a showdown with Israel over settlements and other issues. The US Department of State has decided to shift pressure from Israel to the Palestinian National Authority. What matters for US policymakers today is not justice for the Palestinians, but a resumption of peace talks at any price.

It is safer to threaten the Palestinians than confront the Israelis in a risky face-off. Obama has abandoned his pledges to Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians. It is as simple as that.

It is now up to Arab foreign ministers to respond to Clinton’s slights. They have a chance to do so in Marrakesh. They can either tell the US secretary of state that they cannot be part in a conspiracy to further deny the Palestinians their national rights; or they can choose to succumb to Washington’s pressure and face the consequences.

In all, and at least for the Arabs, Obama appears to have lost his mojo! He has failed to live up to his promises of creating positive change in the region and bringing justice to the Palestinians. Those who had hoped that he would stand up to Israeli injustice have been proven wrong. The Arabs should decide that while they cannot negotiate with the Israelis, they can at least engage the Americans. Instead of letting Clinton dictate a new course for future peace talks, they must force her to listen and tell her that Washington’s current track is simply not acceptable!

— Osama Al Sharif is a veteran journalist and political commentator based in Jordan.