Fox News’s Major Garrett had this interview exchange with Obama:

GARRETT: The Israelis have announced intentions to put more settlements in Gilo, I believe is the name of the city, how helpful or hurtful to the process it that and do you consider it a rebuke of your efforts to stop those settlements?

OBAMA: Well there is no doubt that I haven’t been able to stop the settlements; and, there is also no doubt from my perspective that it’s in, not only the US interests but actually Israeli interests to not build settlements.

Look, the situation in the Middle East is very difficult, and I’ve said repeatedly and I’ll say again, Israel’s security is a vital national interest to the United States, and we will make sure they are secure.

I think that additional settlement building does not contribute to Israel’s security, I think it makes it harder for them to make peace with their neighbors, I think it embitters the Palestinians in a way that could end up being very dangerous, and it makes, makes it hard to re-launch any kind of serious talks about how you achieve a two-state solution.

Well, that’s at least a recognition of the total humiliating failure that has resulted from Obama’s setttlement-freeze gambit. He’s right that “there is no doubt that I haven’t been able to stop the settlements.” Yes, that much is clear. But you can see that his fixation on settlements remains, and he continues to offer the Palestinians the excuse to do nothing. This of course  raises the question as to why, if it’s all about settlements and territory, that the Palestinians weren’t enthused by the withdrawal from Gaza. And what precisely does “in a way that could end up being very dangerous” mean? Hard to see if the president is predicting an intifada or threatening Israel in some fashion.

But of course the most disingenuous and least — what’s the word? — ah, self-reflective part of this is that the settlement activity “makes it hard to re-launch any kind of serious talks about how you achieve a two-state solution.” No, that was the president’s doing. It was elevating this issue above all else, trying to paint Bibi Netanyhu into a corner, and raising and then dashing the expectations of the Palestinians that made the launch of “serious talks” all the more difficult.

But back in the real world, one has to ask what would be “serious” about the talks. What deal could the Palestinians make and who would be empowered to make it? The president is enamored of talks, but at some point someone should ask him: what would be the point?