HAD I been able to find anyone to take the other side of the bet I proposed a couple of weeks back regarding Bibi Netanyahu's speech to Congress, I would now be a shekel millionaire. Behold a couple of people who were not "impressed by the Prime Minister's desire to move forward in peace with our neighbours":

"What Netanyahu said in his speech tonight is a clear rejection of the suggestions of President Obama concerning the borders of 1967," said Abbas spokesman Nabil Abu Rdeneh. "Actually, what he did is that he put more obstacles in the path of peace." In Gaza, the Islamic militant Hamas was equally critical. "Netanyahu denied us all our rights," said Sami Abu Zuhri, a spokesman. "We must work to adopt an Arab and Palestinian strategy based on the right of resistance."

Obviously, from the standpoint of the Israeli right, these comments don't really count. After all, Messrs Rdeneh and Abu Zuhri are members of the two factions of the Palestinian government; surely one doesn't expect them to approve of any speech by Mr Netanyahu. But wait a minute. What exactly did that Israeli government official mean when he said that "everyone" would be impressed by Mr Netanyahu's speech? It seems the actual neighbours of Israel themselves are not the people Mr Netanyahu wanted to convince of his desire to move forward in peace with Israel's neighbours. He was interested in persuading Israel's American sponsors of his desire to move forward in peace with his neighbours. At that, as my colleague writes, the dozens of standing ovations he received in Congress showed he handily succeeded.

But even this is putting the case too strongly. Mr Netanyahu does not need to persuade even his American congressional sponsors of his desire to move forward in peace. He merely needs to persuade them that he has done enough to continue to pretend that the absence of peace is not his fault. No, even this is too strong. What Mr Netanyahu needs to convince them of is that he has done enough that they can continue to pretend that the absence of peace is not Mr Netanyahu's fault. This allows them, without too much fear of embarrassment, to maintain a maximal pro-Israeli stance on the campaign trail and avoid any potential Israel-related electoral challenges. Since it is seemingly impossible for a candidate to lose an election in America for being anti-Palestinian, that's really all they need to worry about.

And you've gotta admit, there's really no point, for American politicians, in treating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a real issue that actually needs to be resolved, rather than a fake issue that just demands a bit of campaign posturing. The fact is, it is a fake issue. There will be no peace between Israel and Palestine anytime in the foreseeable future; there will be nothing but more war. So why should American congressmen bother taking a meaningful stance here? They're better off dishing Mr Netanyahu his empty applause, getting re-elected, and spending their political capital on some issue where they can actually achieve an outcome meaningful to themselves and their constituents.