Whatever Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is going to say in his big speech on Sunday, it had better not be based on the world according to “Boogie” (also known as Vice-Premier and Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon). In a strident and uncompromising speech at WINEP earlier this week, Boogie reiterated his opposition to a two-state approach to Middle East peace, stating flatly that, "If in two years’ time we will have a political settlement, I believe we will witness Hamastan in the West Bank, and we are not going to implement it.” He also implicitly attacked President Obama’s outreach efforts to the Arab and Muslim worlds, suggesting that conciliatory gestures, "just strengthens their conviction of victim-hood and their resolve to restore their honor." Boogie was also a main speaker at an anti-peace conference in May designed to coincide with the Prime Minister’s visit to Washington, at which he declared that the two state solution had “failed,” that there was no chance of peace in the foreseeable future, and that Israel could and would allow no Palestinian “entity” to be formed.

If this is the attitude that comes through in Netanyahu’s Sunday remarks, the path to confrontation with the Obama administration will become quite direct. There is, therefore, almost no chance that Bibi will be speaking overtly in the terms of the world according to Boogie. He is enough of a pragmatist to understand that he cannot prevail in a confrontation with the American president, and that the best he can possibly hope for is a lose-lose result. The most optimistic thing to look for would be signs of a gradual climb down. Netanyahu’s retreat from his strident positions and from the world according to Boogie has to be gradual because he otherwise risks exploding his coalition with the extreme right and either entering into new elections in which he is unlikely to do better than last time, or entering a coalition with Kadima in which he will not be the most politically powerful player (how, in such a coalition, would he remain prime minister when Livni has one more seat than he does in the Knesset?).

Speculation differs as to what kind of climbdown Netanyahu is contemplating. Americans for Peace Now reports that, "Israel’s Channel 2 Hebrew-language news just aired the story that Prime Minister Netanyahu is considering adopting a temporary freeze in settlement activity." Ha’aretz says that Netanyahu will announce "the adoption of the road map and the ‘two-state solution,’” and that "he will try to reach a tacit understanding with U.S. President Barack Obama on the suspension of construction for a specific period of time.” The report adds that, "A senior Washington source confirmed that progress had been achieved, but stressed that ‘our position on the need to cease settlement construction has not been altered at all.’”

There is no question whatsoever that Washington needs to hold firm to the settlement freeze, but give Netanyahu the time and space to develop an accommodation of this requirement that does not unseat his coalition. The last thing the quest for a settlement freeze needs is for it to be the cause of the collapse of an Israeli government, raising the issue to a proven career-killer and spooking all future Israeli prime ministers. There is a big difference, and a wide range of options, between giving way on the principle and practical necessity for a settlement freeze, which is unthinkable, and recognizing that there is a need to give Netanyahu the time, space and political cover to shift in this direction. It should be recalled that no Israeli government has ever successfully implemented a settlement freeze, and underestimating the political difficulties of such a gesture would be foolish.

Since his election, Netanyahu and his cabinet have been desperately searching for a way to get Washington to tacitly accommodate their settlement expansion inclinations while ostensibly sticking to the settlement freeze position. They have found no means of achieving this, and rather have met with a firm position that amounts to an American bottom line. As a consequence, Netanyahu is now forced to do the opposite: look for a way in which he can tacitly (or temporarily, or conditionally) but effectively accommodate the American demand for settlement freeze while ostensibly claiming that he has not done so, or at least not fully.

It would be unwise not to grant him this space, as the alternative to a certain degree of patience with Netanyahu is a de facto confrontation between the United States government and his coalition. Much as this might give emotional satisfaction to many people, it would waste badly needed time, energy, American political capital, and Obama’s own reserves of clout and credibility, on a political squabble that is best avoided so that the same resources can be applied to more constructive efforts to advance the conditions for peace. Moreover, as I already noted, if the issue of settlement freeze were the proximate cause of the collapse of Netanyahu’s government, this would hardly be an inducement to future Israeli governments and would only underscore the political dangers involved. Finally, while Netanyahu cannot prevail in a confrontation with Obama, and it is possible for Obama to prevail, the most likely scenario is that both parties suffer significant political damage in a lose-lose scenario that could potentially suck the life out of the President’s vital initiative for Middle East peace.

As a practical matter, the Israeli government position on settlements, peace and Palestinian statehood must be shifted, and there is strong evidence that President Obama is succeeding in moving Prime Minister Netanyahu’s approach, however reluctant Bibi may be. If Netanyahu’s position moves in the direction suggested by Channel 2 and Ha’aretz on Sunday, it will not be reflecting the world according to Boogie. Most probably it will also not be enough. But it certainly could and should be a start, and that will be both a significant accomplishment for President Obama and solid ground for going forward.