A common diplomatic and political knowledge is that if one denies a certain piece of information altogether, then this piece of information is 100 percent accurate.
In the last months Israel suffered a handful of diplomatic blows, starting with the hostile attitude of Turkey, through the boomerang effect of killing of senior Hamas commander Al-Mabhouh in Dubai caused due to the use of forged Western passports, ending with the unwillingness of the powers to inflict serious sanctions on Iran. The recent stroke, however, hurts the most: a dramatic, surprising crisis between Israel and the US, its decades-long closest ally. In media briefings and in official occasions, both sides fiercely deny the existence of a crisis; alternately, they describe the situation as differences of opinion among friends. The swift talk cannot hide the "MacGuffin" of this plot: The Obama administration will turn a blind eye no more to the continuous building to the Jewish population in East Jerusalem.
Although the US – Israel relationship had its ups and downs in the past, even veteran mediators cannot recall such a snowball effect. On the one hand, it seems that the US tries to sabotage the current Israeli regime by embarrassing it worldwide. On the other hand, Israel seems as if it deliberately tries to hamper the efforts to restart the dialogue with the Palestinians through the mechanism of the proximity talks.
However, a more careful observation shows that the strategic alliance between the two states stays intact, though the tactics to achieve common targets within the frame of the strategy are indeed changing.
The US has long fulfilled the role of Israel's ally and main defender on the international arena, be it in financial aid, military cooperation or in international organizations. The Obama administration has not and will not change former policies. Nevertheless, this administration is much more pragmatic and much less idealistic than it was in Bush era. Therefore it seeks to communicate and compromise even with hostile countries. In a simple dialectic process, the Obama administration states that: a. many regional conflicts, not to mention the global terror, are affected by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. b. In many countries in the region, the US does not enjoy much credibility as a neutral actor in the global arena. c. A limited-scale confrontation with Israel is needed to gain back credibility. The rationale between the changes in policy is the wish to push Israel to a T-junction without turning back: to choose between peace and war, concessions or obsession.
Regarding the conflict with the Palestinians, the political system in Israel has always been polarized between the national right and the social-democrat left. In recent years the disappointment among Israeli public from the peace process and from Palestinian policies has blurred the dividing line and caused many Israelis to choose a somewhat "middle road". However, the basic differences remain and one of the most prominent political truths is that only a right wing government can take dramatic actions such as the disengagement plan from Gaza Strip. That is Netanyahu tries to show that he is brutally pushed by en external power to take unwanted steps. Moreover, the Israeli political system has taught us that Prime Minister can enjoy a second term, and usually it is much better than the first one: Rabin signed the peace agreement with Jordan in his second time as a PM (the first was at the mid 1970's). Sharon ordered the disengagement plan in his second term. Due to these reasons, I believe that Netanyahu will eventually find enough courage to cope both within his government and within his home, especially because he does aspire to leave his mark on world history.