Obama's Mideast speech this week has pleased no one, it seems. Some Arab commentators said President Obama should have apologized for the U.S. unwavering backing of the region's most brutal dictators over the years. Israelis had a fairly usual Israeli reaction. "The 1967 borders are indefensible," said Prime Minister Netanyahu on Friday at the White House. Many others said Obama only reacts to changes in the region and has proven unable to change or guide them. "Leadership in the passive voice," as one columnist headlined on Aljazeera English today. Yes, there were things Obama could have said. I found his failure to mention Saudi Arabia, for instance, to be a reckless omission and he should have said that Israel should accept criticism and respect international law. The speech was still minimally courageous and that should be recognized, particularly by Arabs at this juncture in the history of the region. Just listen to Netanyahu on Friday almost pleading with Obama not to take Israel again to the 1967 lines. I can't remember any other time when an American president has explicitly put an Israeli prime minister in this delicate situation and one day before his arrival to Washington.Obama stood firm by his position on the 1967 lines today when he addressed the AIPAC conference, although he emphasized any negotiations should involve land swaps. Let's be clear about this. The principles for negotiation Obama has proposed on Thursday are not new. Going back to the 1967 lines, including East Jerusalem, has been called for by the United Nations (more than 130 countries), the European Union, and many other international organizations, but Israel has always shrugged them off as a non-starter. Palestinians will not give up Jerusalem and no land swaps can be a worthy substitute.

I firmly believe in a two-state solution, but It's hard to understand exactly what Israel wants. Mahmood Abbas has never been a serious negotiating partner for Israelis. He was weakened until Hamas took over Gaza. Hamas is a terrorist organization and should not even be spoken to. Now that Hamas and Fatah have united, then there can be no peace anymore. Will the conditions ever be good enough to negotiate? Even Hamas once accepted to negotiate with Israel if the 1967 lines were acknowledged. 

I understand that Palestinians have their part to play, but it's time an American president spoke some sense into the Israeli government. I hope Obama can stay the course and not retreat once the criticism from Israel, the Jewish lobby and the republican party heats on. What I like about Obama's speech on Thursday is that it took away some of the firm grip the Israeli government has had on the framing of this conflict in the United States. It might not be much to some, but I think it's some progress in the right direction. Israel needs to draw some lessons from the tectonic events of the last six months in the region and adopt a different, smarter, and more accommodating policy to resolve this conflict. This generation of young Arabs is amazingly media savvy and if there is anything they've learnt from the spring events is that framing your position well and defending it peacefully through media and street campaigns works better than anything else. Israel is still stuck in Hamas mode, but the ground is changing all around them and all they tell us is we have to watch out for the extremist elements that might emerge out of this transition in the Arab world. This is exactly the Muabarak-Ghaddafi-Ben Ali rhetoric millions of Arabs have revolted against. 

Another important change Israelis have to watch for is that young American Jews are much more critical and less willing to adopt an Israel-no-matter-what-support like their parents or grandparents. We saw some of these changes play out around the Gaza assault of 2009. Young Jews are willing to talk and avoid a group think mentality, which is exactly what young Arabs have articulated through their protests recently. I hope President Obama is responding to these changes too by putting some pressure on Israel.