They said Bibi was different this time, that he had changed, grown, matured.

They said he better understood the world stage, his place in history.

The truth? We’re not so sure.

We don’t in any way doubt Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s intentions, desires, his passion for a Middle East free of war and strife. But we think at this point, he is either too jaded to try, or has no idea how to get there.

In presenting the history of world leaders since the late 1970s this Sunday, the New York Times quoted President John F. Kennedy as saying, “The purpose of foreign policy is not to provide an outlet for our own sentiments or indignation; it is to shape real events in a real world.”

Some suggest Bibi is understood simply by viewing his acts from this notion of realpolitik, namely, that his (and our) beloved nation has been besieged by such hateful factions in the Islamist and Palestinian worlds that no positives can emanate from policy, that only continued, perpetual Cold War is possible. In fact, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ recent New York Times opinion piece, which we wrote of last week, was filled with such utter vituperation toward Israel that one can hardly blame Bibi for his encrusted views.

We understand the cynicism, and we don’t even have to live it every day as Israelis do. But do the logic puzzle, Bibi: if shaping peace is impossible, then what are the alternatives? To us, there’s only two – the seesaw between temporary cessation, and outright war. And being the eternal optimists we are, we refuse to cave to these as the exclusive options.

The status quo of jagged unrest is certainly possible, with periods of relative calm mixed with tragic flareups when Israel’s opponents choose to get physical with their hatred. History suggests the quietude is always temporary, and since Operation Cast Lead, we’ve seen plenty of overt conduct by Palestinian leaders and their allies intended to grab and sway world opinion against Israel. And while the table-pounding for a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state via the United Nations might seem diplomatic in nature, Abbas’ column suggested that “Palestine,” once created, would immediately attempt to prosecute Israel for international crimes. Hardly the stuff that peace is made of.

Bibi fully understands this, of course, and he’s right to condemn such posturing and pandering. But he’s wrong to eschew offers that are sincerely intended to work toward peace, and we think at this point he may have cotton irretrievably stuffed in his ears.

An excellent example of his intransigence is his response to President Barack Obama’s speech last week. The president was emphatic in his unwavering support of Israel, but this was largely glossed over in favor of trouncing Obama’s explicit statement of what has largely been the implicit position of both the Bush (43) and Clinton Administrations, namely, that some sort of retreat to 1967 borders, with accompanying land swaps, is the most likely path to peace. Not to equity, or fairness, or even, in President Kennedy’s view, to sentiment. But to peace.

If that’s not a peace you like or want, so be it, we get it. But we are hard pressed to disagree with Obama’s characterization of the situation, and most American Jewish organizations acknowledged the president’s efforts by giving him kudos on the heels of the speech (which he followed up by an appearance before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that couldn’t have been too awful for Israel, since large swaths of the Arab world condemned it as a retreat).

This view was reflected in David Suissa’s excellent May 23 column in the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles. He points out that his Sephardic anger toward Obama’s focus on borders was substantially rendered into Ashkenazi tachlis, or pragmatic substance, by the president’s strongly expressed solidarity paired with condemnation of Hamas and publicity stunts at the United Nations. “(W)hat Israel desperately needs right now is priceless: the unqualified support of the most powerful man on earth. Seen in that light, it doesn’t matter if I think Obama is good or bad for Israel. What matters is that he’s really important for Israel – and I need him squarely on my side,” Suissa said.

The upshot of recent events is that Bibi can go strong and swagger but he hasn’t shown that he’s the man to make a deal, if and when the other side comes to the table in serious fashion. Say what you want about it taking two to tango, you must at least don the costume and wait for your partner. (Perhaps his Tuesday appearance before Congress, in which he seemed to be a bit more constructive and less combative, is a sign of a more hopeful countenance – or maybe of just being in front of a less insistent audience was Obama.)

We’re not asking Bibi to produce a peace agreement unilaterally, and we’re not asking him to perform miracles. What we are asking is for him to choose – does he want to invite overtures toward peace, or does he want to declare a cool or actual war fait accompli and slough off any further attempts at forging peace?

Our bet, based on recent events, is that he can’t or won’t accomplish the former, and that he’s mired irrevocably in the pessimism of the latter. We sincerely hope we’re wrong.