Thankfully, analysts and pundits in the Israeli mainstream media are not joining the gloat-fest. "Aanyone who thinks that he can take comfort in Obama's sincere admission and continue to do nothing to break free of the stalemate, may be proved wrong.  The tactic of building walls and mocking 'American naïveté' may prove to be disastrous," Shiffer concluded his analysis.

Others concurred. Nadav Eyal of Ma'ariv wrote: "There can be no doubt some Israelis are gleeful over the fact that Obama has despaired of us. Soon, in just a few months, we will be able to build in every corner in Judea and Samaria, mock the notion of a peace agreement, embrace millions of Palestinians citizens into our midst, and part with the two-state solution formula. Bibi will be able to note a major achievement, Abu Mazen will tell himself that all will go well once his regime in the West Bank settles, and together we shall march proudly into stagnation, depression, occupation and the next war. Do yourselves a favor: take no joy in his despair."

Not only is the Israeli media not siding with those in the Netanyahu's government who are celebrating Obama's frustration, but it shares the President's frustration with the Israeli government's inability to deliver bolder steps toward peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Furthermore, several Israeli commentators rebuke Obama for not applying more pressure on Israel.

"In his American way, Obama is reproaching the parties for being unable to overcome petty political considerations for the better good of their peoples," observes Ma'ariv's Eyal. "This is a serious accusation, and one may admit upfront: it is correct." Eyal continues: "what exactly has Obama done, what has his administration done, in order to realize the blissful vision presented only a year ago? The answer, put simply, is not enough... . Did we witness the imposing of a unambiguous American peace initiative? Was a clear timetable laid out, with sticks and carrots? And how exactly has the White House gone about cracking Israeli public opinion, the center of gravity for any peace process? Does one recall Obama's dramatic appearance before the Knesset, in which he detailed his policy for the Middle East? Were there any extensive interviews granted to the Israeli media outlets in an effort to speak directly to the distrustful Israeli public? Apparently not, because such thing never occurred."

And Yedioth Ahronoth's Washington correspondent Orly Azulai chides: "Obama could have pounded on the table and done what the world expected him to do: To take the initiative, seize the recalcitrant parties by their hair and not let go until they consented.    Every US president has at his disposal an impressive array of tools, but Obama has not yet used any of them.  He neither raised a diplomatic hammer nor threatened with a political ax.  He did not even do the minimum that his aides promised when they entered the White House: To openly present a detailed American peace plan and apply pressure to the sides to conform to it. " Asserting that the worse thing for Israel would be "American indifference," Azulai points out that "Netanyahu and [Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, aka] Abu Mazen know that the only plan on the agenda is establishing a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with border revisions, a land swap on a dunam-for-dunam basis, declaring Jerusalem as the capital of the two states--and establishing diplomatic ties between Israel and all the Arab states." With that in mind, Azulai writes, "Obama should have presented this plan, set a strict timetable for its implementation, threatened to denounce the recalcitrant parties and marketed it at a grandiose international conference.  But Obama chose the easy way out: He chose to be offended, turned up his nose and turned his back."

Expect more news and views on this issue in the Israeli media after the Sabbath, as Special Envoy George Mitchell concludes his current visit to the region.