BARACK Obama has become ahero to the Palestinians. Meanwhile, a poll published in The Jerusalem Post shows a minuscule 6 per cent of Israelis believe Obama's administration and policies are pro-Israel.
This week I spent a morning in the Palestinian West Bank capital of Ramallah. Unlike most of the West Bank, Ramallah is a thriving city of shopping malls, new apartment buildings and designer brands.
Riad Malki, the Palestinian Authority's Foreign Minister, cites Obama's attitude as the biggest positive change in the prospects for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Another Palestinian politician, Mustafa Barghouti, tells me he found Obama's speech to the Muslim world in Cairo inspiring: "We were especially touched when President Obama compared the Palestinian struggle with that of African Americans for civil rights, or blacks in South Africa under apartheid. That was new language. We saw some fairness in the US President."
Israelis point out that Obama didn't actually equate those diverse situations but, rather, urged Palestinians to commit to non-violent political processes. It may well be that Palestinians will wind up disappointed by what Obama can ultimately deliver to them. And it may equally be that Israelis will ultimately be reassured about Obama's commitment to their security.
But there is no doubt that Obama has stirred a frisson of hope among the Palestinians and anxiety among the Israelis. He has done this through his Cairo speech, his administration's repeated criticism of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and his sustained advocacy of a more urgent peace process.
In response, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a speech in which he accepted the need for a Palestinian state. He had done this before in his political career but not since becoming Prime Minister (for the second time) a few months ago.
This is especially telling because Netanyahu's Likud Party split when its former leader, Ariel Sharon, embarked on a disengagement plan to unilaterally withdraw from Palestinian territories. Netanyahu stayed with, and led, the Likud hardliners who opposed Sharon's plan.
The Palestinians are unhappy with aspects of Netanyahu's speech. But the speech does mean that all the big Israeli parties are now committed to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
One of the key figures in Israeli politics whose backing was essential for Netanyahu to make his landmark speech was the sleek, smooth figure of Gideon Sa'ar.
Sa'ar is Israel's Education Minister, the No.2 ranked politician in the Likud Party, widely seen as Netanyahu's logical successor and a future prime minister.
In a long discussion with Sa'ar at his Jerusalem office, I ask whether he is happy with Netanyahu's speech. "Happy is not the right word," he says. "But I support the Prime Minister. I thought he stood on the right red lines: Jerusalem, refugees, defensible borders."
What Sa'ar means is that Netanyahu insisted that Jerusalem would remain an Israeli city, Palestinian refugees and their descendants (now numbering several million) would not be allowed to return to Israel proper, and that an independent Palestinian state would have to be a demilitarised state.
"It's quite clear that today the dispute in Israel is not between those who favour territorial compromise and those who don't," Sa'ar says. "The argument is more about the extent of the compromise and the powers that this entity (a Palestinian state) will hold. The real argument inside Israel is not so big. Those who support a (Palestinian) state support a state minus, others support an entity plus."
Sa'ar, like Netanyahu, insists a Palestinian state must be demilitarised, which means limited rights to sign military alliances, control its own airspace or import certain weapons systems.
Other influential figures inside Likud still oppose a Palestinian state.
Danny Danon, a young Likud politician and Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, who is thought to have a big future, tells me he believes an independent Palestinian state will reproduce the toxic syndrome of Hamas control of Gaza. This would engage in terrorism against Israel, which would require Israeli military intervention.
That does not mean he wants Israel to rule the Palestinians forever. In Danon's vision, the West Bank will eventually go back to Jordan and the Gaza Strip to Egypt.
But the Israeli consensus is now with Netanyahu and Sa'ar. For his part, Sa'ar does not see an independent Palestinian state emerging quickly: "Everyone agrees today it's quite dangerous to step to a solution now. It's just not practical at this time."
Sa'ar comes to this conclusion because he believes Palestinian institutions cannot yet enforce security or run a state. He thinks, therefore, that the American focus on stopping all building in Jewish settlements beyond the 1967 borders will not enhance peace.
"Some people believe that if Israel does X - withdraws to the '67 borders, uproots the settlements - then we'll have peace," Sa'ar says. "The truth is that our will, or our willingness to make concessions, is not the most important factor. A deep change in Palestinian and Arab society is the most important thing. Until now they never recognised Israel's right to exist."
Netanyahu has lately insisted that the Palestinians and neighbouring Arab governments recognise Israel as a Jewish state. All of Israel's Arab interlocutors have refused point blank to do this. Israel's population is 75 per cent Jewish, the only majority Jewish state in the world. Recognising Israel as a Jewish state would seem to be no more controversial than calling Italy a Christian state or any of the Arab nations Muslim states.
Sa'ar explains its significance: "The UN decision of 1947 (to create Israel) is all about a Jewish state." He argues that without explicit recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, the demands for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank are really a disguise for a strategy aimed at the destruction of Israel in stages.
Sa'ar argues, controversially, that the peace process of the past decade and a half has made things worse for both Israelis and Palestinians: "After 16 years of the peace process we stand in a place where we have less security than before and the Palestinians have less of an economy.
"The truth is, without working at the grassroots to change the reality on the ground, we can't build reliable processes. We need to change the Palestinian economy, create jobs, build a better standard of living, build a Palestinian administration. Until now, the peace process exists in political meetings, not between the people, and on the ground things don't get better."
One area where Israelis and Palestinians could co-operate, Sa'ar believes, is in encouraging tourism to the great Christian sites, such as Bethlehem, on Palestinian land.
Sa'ar is equally determined to reject the American demand for a freeze on any building in Jewish settlements beyond the 1967 borders: "We don't intend to expand the settlements. We just want people there to live normally and raise their children until negotiations are complete. The demand for a complete freeze on all building actually pre-judges the outcome of negotiations. It is not a demand the international community would put on any other nation."
Sa'ar points out that Israel's unilateral withdrawal of all settlements from the Gaza Strip, and the associated closing down of several settlements in the West Bank, brought no peace or stability.
The government of Netanyahu and Sa'ar is to some extent locked in a battle of wills with the Obama administration over a total freeze on building in the settlements. It is by no means clear how that battle of wills will be decided. The air of steely resolve that Sa'ar exudes will play its part.
