Joe Biden may be ready to forgive and forget the stinging affront from Israel on the eve of his recent visit to the Middle East, but not Barack Obama. In a decisive counterpoint to the vice-president’s honey-glazed avowal of friendship with Israel, irrespective of the latter’s wilful aberrations, the president of the United States of America toughened his resolve to mediate in the longstanding impasse between Israel and Palestine. Mr Obama had earlier expressed his strong indignation at Israel’s decision to carry on building settlements in East Jerusalem, far exceeding the number approved by the US. Israel, though an old hand as far as exasperated or frustrated US presidents are concerned, was yet to face a furious president. The US, too, had so far not made any explicit link between peace in the Middle East and security at home. But now, as anticipated, the US attitude has changed. Mr Obama realized early on that the globalization of terror called for comprehensive strategies instead of localized damage control. He took a long view on Afghanistan and came up with the Afpak policy. Likewise, he believes that as long as the US keeps dilly-dallying in the Middle East, the safety of American soldiers fighting the war on terror will be compromised.

The shift in US-Israel relations is dictated by exigencies that were beginning to be felt during the last days of the Bush administration. In 2007, the then secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, conceded that Israel-Palestine peace was of “strategic interest” to the US. “The prolonged experience of deprivation and humiliation can radicalize even normal people,” she said, by way of a bold suggestion that failed to draw much attention at that time. But even if Mr Obama were able to get Israel and Palestine talking, a formidably difficult task in itself, it would take a long time for a final settlement to shape up. It is not going to be easy for the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, to do the right thing both by his people, who elected ultra-nationalist parties last year, and by the US, Israel’s prized ally. Mr Netanyahu’s predecessor, Ehud Olmert, was shown the door for agreeing to the land-for-peace deal and his willingness to return the Golan Heights to Syria and all occupied territories since 1967 to Palestine. Mr Netanyahu’s Zionism, however, is far more aggressive — a reputation he will have to defend while trying his best to placate the angry American president.