One of the participants at the meeting asked the president to take a lower profile regarding the public differences between his administration and the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the United States’ demand that Israel freeze all settlement construction activity in the West Bank. “This situation is not helpful,” he told the president, who rejected the request, saying that during the eight years of the Bush administration, such disagreements were never made public but that such an approach was not helpful in advancing the peace process.

No word yet on whether the swelling has gone down in the face and posterior of whomever made that point to Obama.

I’m also reliably informed that Obama conspicuously used the term “even-handed” to describe his approach to securing Mideast peace. Now, to anyone not steeped in the noxious brew known as the American debate over Israel, that term is a complete no-brainer. Who could be against being even-handed, after all? Well, for one, Abe Foxman, who’s made the term out to indicate some bias against Israel. Foxman raised a fit in 2003 when Howard Dean, then the 2003 frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, said his Mideast policies would be “even-handed,” something that eventual nominee Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) was happy to exploit. And when Obama tapped George Mitchell to become his Arab-Israeli peace envoy, Foxman complained that Mitchell, a former Senate Majority Leader who worked tirelessly on British-Irish-Northern Irish peace, was “meticulously even-handed.” Yes, in the meshuggeneh parallel universe inhabited only by American Jewish anxiety over Israel — it’s actually not so bad; uncensored episodes of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” are in constant syndication — being “meticulously even-handed” is a bad thing. Obama, however, lives in the real world.

General David Petraeus added his voice to the mix in a front page interview in the influential Saudi paper al-Hayat, saying that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would improve American security and weaken its adversaries.  (Perhaps the imprimatur of Gen. Petraeus will sway some American skeptics as well?)

Maybe, maybe not. It’s somewhat bewildering that a figure of Petraeus’ stature would be needed to express what ought to be an uncontroversial assertion — a settled Israel-Palestinian issue is a net security positive to the United States and a net loss to its enemies — but we are where we are. In The New York Times today there’s a piece elaborating on the administration’s approach to stopping Israeli settlement expansion, which is one of several obstacles to a peace settlement, but according to the Jerusalem Post, Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu rejects that American demand as “unreasonable.” Petraeus’ interview to al-Hayat will be read as a statement of American intent — though, alas, I can’t read it for its specifics, so perhaps it’s merely a generic statement — and there will be a price to pay in the Arab world if the administration backtracks on the settlement issue.

Similarly, it’s not in Obama’s interest — nor is it his style — to kick Netanyahu in the ribs on a two-state solution during their first meeting. Noah Pollak writes at Commentary that Obama’s remarks to Newsweek about the diplomatic interplay between America and Israel on Iran indicate a lack of desire for a “public confrontation,” and that seems in keeping with the way Obama’s operated in office. That will require acceptance from Netanyahu of this:

I think that there is the ability of an Islamic Republic of Iran to maintain its Islamic character while, at the same time, being a member in good standing of the international community and not a threat to its neighbors. And we are going to reach out to them and try to shift off of a pattern over the last 30 years that hasn’t produced results in the region.

Obama said at his second presser that his administration would emphasize the diplomatic virtues of patience with respect to, among other foreign policy problems, Iran. Whether Netanyahu can accept that is an open question. According to Jeffrey Goldberg in The New York Times, Netanyahu is a deeply paranoid man who thinks that Israel is in constant danger of destruction. Somehow Goldberg thinks this is justifiable when placed in the broader context of the Jewish experience, yet paranoiacs rarely make for great leaders.

State Department spokesman Robert Wood said the purpose of Mr. Mitchell’s trip is “to advance the goal of the two-state solution and comprehensive peace in the region,” and that he would be discussing “next steps” toward that end.

At which point Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu felt an elbow in his ribs.

In recent weeks, American officials have briefed senior Democratic congressmen and prepared the ground for the possibility of disagreements with Israel over the peace process, according to information recently received. The administration’s efforts are focused on President Barack Obama’s Democratic Party, which now holds a majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The preemptive briefing is meant to foil the possibility that Netanyahu may try to bypass the administration by rallying support in Congress.

On the one hand, these kinds of stories are often overblown — no disrespect to Benn. But assuming it’s true, isn’t it in Israel’s interest to do whatever it can to avoid a chill in relations with the United States?

The United States is Israel’s great-power protector on the world stage, an absolutely indispensable ally. If the Obama administration is signalling to Israel that things won’t go well if it starts lining up Capitol Hill pressure, shouldn’t the Israelis consider it to be in their best interest to take the hint?

I appreciate very much the call for dialogue that President Obama mentioned, especially between East and West, between Islam and Christianity, and also work to solve the Palestinian issue that will help reduce violence in the area drastically. It will help in giving people their rights also produce peace that we’ve been looking forward for a few years.

ThinkProgress does the yeoman work of rounding up conservative indignation to Obama’s call in Ankara for greater respect for and dialogue with the Islamic world. Maliki’s remarks won’t change any of the critics’ perspectives. But it remains the case that U.S.-supported leaders like Maliki recognize that their jobs would be a lot easier if the festering wound of Palestinian statelessness got a little more U.S. attention.