Say you’re trying to broker a peace deal between two opposing parties, with land being a major between the two.

One side claims to have the right to build settlements that the rest of the world considers illegal and has for years. The supposedly neutral party brokering the deal initially says that the construction of the settlements should be frozen until at least some sort of deal is brokered or talks have taken place.

The settlement builder says “no” and the broker says, “Uh, okay. No worries. Keep building.”

So, how is that going to look to the other side, the one claiming — with massive international support — that the settlements are illegal? How can this party enter into peace talks under such circumstances? Where is the bona fide attempt on behalf of the settlement builders and the peace broker?

This, sadly, is exactly how the Obama administration is dealing with the issue. The Guardian reports:

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, sought to deflect the anger and disappointment of pro-western Arab states today after backing Israel’s position that it did not need to freeze settlement activity as a prelude to resuming peace talks with the Palestinians.

Clinton was due to meet foreign ministers from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other key Arab states at a G8 conference in Morocco after brief talks in Jerusalem and Ramallah at the weekend. In what appeared to be a significant policy shift she publicly supported the position taken by Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Likud prime minister, and even praised him for making “unprecedented” concessions. (…)

Earlier today Amr Moussa, the secretary general of the Arab League, said: “I am telling you that all of us, including Saudi Arabia, including Egypt, are deeply disappointed … with the results, with the fact that Israel can get away with anything without any firm stand that this cannot be done.”

Whither backbone, America?