Stop being polite. Start getting Real.

So says Roula Khalaf, in the Financial Times:

US presidents always claim commitment to Middle East peace, yet rarely, if ever, use their leverage to deliver it. That is why the so-called “peace process” has become a game of pretence, conveniently played to avoid what it is meant to achieve.

George W. Bush was a latecomer but still a master at the game. He was the first US leader to declare unequivocally (over and over again) that Palestinians will have their own independent state. But he embraced many of the Israeli policies that undermined statehood.

Unlike previous administrations, this one came to this conclusion early on and appears convinced that the end of the conflict is not only in the interest of the parties involved, but also, crucially, in the interest of America.

This is what makes Monday’s first meeting between Barack Obama, US president, and Benjamin Netanyahu, the rightwing Israeli prime minister, so dramatic. It will mark the start of a flurry of high-stakes diplomacy that will shape US strategy. Most important, the words that we will hear in public, and the body language that we will watch, will be important signals of the extent to which Mr Obama is willing to push Israel to further his peace objective.
...
Whereas the Bush administration’s foreign policy was rooted in fantasy – it assumed that regime change in Baghdad would miraculously resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict (and everything else that is wrong with the Middle East) – the new administration’s views are rooted in practical realities. It rightly considers that Middle East peace can spread its virtues around, removing a cause that Iran has skilfully exploited to further its influence, undermining Islamist extremists, and restoring America’s battered image in the Muslim world.

Good intentions, and pragmatic analysis, however, are only a start. For the new US vision to materialise, Mr Obama will need to have a few blunt words with Mr Netanyahu, while also carefully sending the message to the Israeli public that the pressure is in the Jewish state’s best interest.

The smooth-talking Mr Netanyahu will no doubt bring a menu of generous initiatives, some he is genuinely interested in and others included for the purpose of diversion. Unless he has undergone a sudden, and unlikely, conversion, his views will not be acceptable to the administration.

Based on what we have heard from him so far, he will outline the obstacles to peace – the divided Palestinians, the untrustworthy Syrians, and the threatening non-state radical groups that are tormenting Israel with their missiles.

He will say peace should begin in Tehran, by stopping Iran’s nuclear programme. He will stress that “economic peace” to improve Palestinians’ standard of living – though not deliver them statehood – is the answer.

Mr Netanyahu will not oppose political dialogue with the Palestinians. Mr Obama, however, should make clear that talks must address the substance of the conflict, which means the borders of the Palestinian state, the fate of Palestinian refugees and that of Jerusalem, and that they cannot be open-ended.