Ehud Barak arrives in Washington bearing a new Israeli proposal to bridge the differences over a settlement freeze that have arisen between the Obama and Netanyahu governments. It involves a three to six month cessation of all new construction, excluding East Jerusalem. Construction currently underway, which Israel claims amounts to 2,000 units, would be grandfathered into the agreement. I call it either "freeze-lite" or "freeze fraud" depending on my level of outrage at the moment.

In return for this alleged compromise, Israel demands the Arab states offer Israeli planes the right to traverse Arab airspace, and Israelis travellers the right to transit Arab airports. The plan also would include academic and tourist exchanges.

When you review the diplomatic record and public statements of US officials on subjects covered by the Israeli proposal, you realise that Israel is doing little more than playing games.

The following is an exchange between Ian Kelly, a US state department spokesperson, and a journalist at a recent press conference:

Question: When you're talking about no natural growth in settlements … does that include any Jerusalem neighbourhoods that are over the green line? Ian Kelly: That – we call for a cease to all settlement activity. Question: Including Jerusalem… Kelly: We're talking about all settlement activity, yeah, in the area across the line.

On the issue of settlement housing currently under construction, which Israel excludes from its compromise plan, the US position is equally clear:

Question: On Israel, I think there were reports that Israel has authorised … building of an additional 240 settlements in the West Bank. Looking for comment on that. I think the number was 300. Kelly: I'll reiterate … what I always say and what others say: We oppose continued settlement activity. All parties have the responsibility to help create the context that will support renewed, meaningful negotiations that can be concluded quickly. The bottom line is that we expect all parties to honour their commitments.

Something's not getting through to the Israelis. Paul Woodward at War in Context thinks what's required is for Barack Obama to locate his inner-Tony Soprano. Maybe light up a cigar in the Oval Office, pretend he's packing a .357 Magnum is his waistband. He'll call in his Christopher Moltisanti – that would be Rahm Emanuel – and get tough on the Israelis.

Some tough talk and lots of expletives would ensue (that would be Rahm talking, not Barack). Bibi would be made to understand what he has to do. And if he refused, he would be made to understand the political pain and diplomatic isolation he would endure.

I like the fact that George Mitchell, according to Yediot Achronot, cancelled his last scheduled meeting with Bibi in Paris. When Barak meets Mitchell on Tuesday there should be no photo ops, no pleasantries, no diplomatic niceties. The atmosphere should be as polite as necessary, but no more so. The defence minister should be told in no uncertain terms that his plan is a non-starter and that he's insulting the US by even bringing it. Israel knows what's required. Let them do it. And if they can't do it, then they should be made to suffer the political consequences of a frozen US-Israel relationship.

Someone should remind Ehud and Bibi that the Pew Center shows that 62% of Americans approve of Obama's tough love policy toward Israel. So if Bibi thinks he's going to pull a rabbit out of his yarmulke by splitting the White House and Congress, as he's done in the past in similar situations, it just ain't gonna happen. This is a popular American president who just brought Democratic majorities to both houses of Congress for the first time in decades. Congress isn't prepared to give Obama the kind of grief Bibi would like. Aipac isn't going to come riding to the rescue as it has in the past. A J Street polls shows that even a majority of American Jews would be willing to support US pressure on Israel if that was what was required for peace.

No doubt, there are many loyal supporters of Israel for whom such a prospect is deeply troubling. They're used to a US-Israel partnership based (supposedly) on trust and good faith. The idea that a US president should or even could exert such pressure on Israel provokes anxiety and even anger among some American Jews.

Those of us in the American Jewish peace camp don't come to this position happily. Very few enjoy the prospect of an Israeli prime minister brought to his knees. But the truth is that Bibi and Israel have only themselves to blame.

Obama knows the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict. He knows of the 42 years of occupation, the endless wars, the billions in armaments from the US arsenal, the tacit acceptance of settlement building by previous presidents. He also knows that Israel has had numerous opportunities to break out of this cycle, and it has refused every one (even if Israel's enemies have lost similar opportunities themselves).

Like me, Obama has reluctantly come to the conclusion that the only thing that can bring Israel to its senses is some head-banging. So as Israel's Mr Smith makes his way to Washington, I hope George Mitchell and the president find their inner-Tony Sopranos and say to themselves: "Bring it on, Ehud."