By Maryam Zar

If there ever was a polite political smack-down, this was it.

On Tuesday May 24, Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the joint sessions of the U.S. Congress, for the second time in his political career. More than 400 lawmakers, representing every American constituency across all 50 states, were present for the address.

On Wednesday May 25, Mr. Obama addressed the British Parliament in a historic appearance at Westminster Hall, the first by a U.S. President.

Mr. Netanyahu’s speech focused on the Arab-Israeli conflict, as it invariably does - and for good reason. The peace talks have stalled yet again on the heels of an Israeli refusal to continue a moratorium on settlement building, U.S. Envoy George Mitchell has resigned in unmistakable ineffectiveness, and Hamas and Fatah have penned a “unity” that has the Israelis reeling while still blind-sighted by the Arab upheavals that have so far eliminated at least one of Israel’s most reliable partners in the Middle East. On top of that, on May 19, Mr. Obama addressed the nation just a few days prior to Mr. Netanyahu’s scheduled trip to Washington D.C., and boldly advised Israel to revert to 1967 borders in order to realistically engage in the peace process.  Netanyahu’s was a clearly strategized and carefully worded rebuttal to Mr. Obama’s earlier speech. Mr. Netanyahu spoke for nearly 40 minutes, during which he received more than 30 standing ovations from U.S. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, and cemented his long-standing alliance with Vice President Biden at least twice at the podium, with delicate nods to the Veep.

Across the Atlantic, Mr. Obama by contrast, stepped away from brick and mortar politics, and in true Obama style, hit the high notes of humanity, leadership and history. He proclaimed that young people from all over the world still dream to come to America and the UK to count themselves as one among the free people of the world. Mr. Obama, lest we forget, is burdened by the Nobel Peace prize he was awarded last year at a time when most observers said he had not yet proven his peace-maker credentials, although his overtures were honorable.  As the end of his first term as U.S. president nears with no guarantee of a second term, Obama must be looking at the legacy of his first term, weighted with the additional pressure of having won the Nobel, which raised expectations he would usher in an era of peace and reconciliation in the Middle East. Today, the Arab-Israeli peace looks as elusive as ever, with the roadmap in tatters and negotiations stalled. Middle East envoy George Mitchell has recently resigned in undeniable ineffectiveness, and some have voiced doubt that the U.S. can be a credible neutral broker for peace. The Palestinians, having finally accepted the reality that the U.S. will side with Israel on the tough issues, have resorted to the U.N. and a collection of nations for recognition of their aspirations for statehood.

Harkening back to his days on the campaign trail, when Mr. Obama moved millions to declare his candidacy a movement not just an election, President Obama moved the house of commons in a lofty speech that cast the U.S. and U.K. as global leaders, bound by the common bond of freedom, fueled by the strength of ideas (not to mention militaries) and motivated by nothing less than the desire for world peace. Even the skeptics were holding their heads a little higher once he was done with his oration. If only solving problems were as easy as delivering speeches.

Back in the U.S., Netanyahu had painted a picture of the perfect peace – at least from his perch – in front of a U.S. Congress that spent more time on their feet clapping mindlessly, than sitting in their chairs thinking critically. Israel, Netanyahu said, would consider compromised borders but would not revert to the “indefensible” lines of 1967. It would talk about ceding land, but not consider the partition of Jerusalem. He recognized that Palestinian refugees may want to return to their “homeland” but couldn’t accommodate them by providing for it in any peace deal. Israel, he said, was willing, indeed eager, to negotiate final status issues but wouldn’t give an inch on them and didn’t think a Fattah that has forged a “unity agreement” with Hamas was a real partner for peace. It was a brilliant speech that had everyone in the room nodding in agreement, while Netanyahu was skillfully slamming the door on any meaningful give-take with which to craft a peace with his frustrated neighbors.

But as unrealistic as his vision for peace was, his assessment of Middle East realities rang far truer. Out of 300 million Arabs in the Middle East, he noted that only the roughly one million who live in Israel proper enjoy the freedoms the other 299 million are protesting for in the blood soaked streets of their own countries. The reality of the Middle East is that although the Israelis are the powerful thug on the block who doesn’t always play fair, the neighbors are in such rancorous disarray that the thug looks reasonable. Many may want to see a more even handed foreign policy on the part of the United States when it comes to Israel and the Arabs, but the fact is that Israel has taken the support of the U.S. and turned it into schools, industries, research facilities, roads, buildings, bridges and infrastructure along with a spirited parliament that is elected largely without strings. Israel has implemented, at least for its Jewish citizens, a host of essential pillars associated with civic freedoms, which the Arabs have not. It cannot be denied that even the Arabs who have enjoyed American financial and military support, have not turned that support into structural seeds for a healthy, open and vibrant society. More commonly, they have squandered the cash into their own troughs or lined the pockets of their cronies, consolidated military aid into mighty armies loyal to the leadership versus the people, and continued to perpetuate fear to suffocate their societies instead of allowing the blossoming of ideas. It is hard to look across the landscape of the Middle East and ask America to turn its allegiance toward some tyrannical monarchy, versus the prospering democracy that is, however flawed, the state of Israel.