I have no way of checking this, but my suspicion is that President Bush is a keen fan of the Pointer Sisters. Only an early morning presidential workout to their hit song "I’m So Excited" that then embedded itself in Bush’s head, the way morning tunes tend to do, could possibly explain the phraseology he used yesterday to describe the Palestinian situation.

In a short press conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the president three times mentioned being "excited" by the new Middle East reality. It’s true. Yesterday we saw the president at his "when in trouble, deny and escalate" best. His policy of backing and even arming the Dahlan faction of Fatah against Hamas had just suffered a stunning reversal and yet there he was: so "excited."

It was a moment of "bring ‘em on" style bravado. The substance of the press conference -- and the Israeli leader played his part too -- was deeply disturbing. They discussed four issues: the big-picture struggle, strengthening young democracies, Palestinian suffering, and Syria. Let’s look at each in turn.

Bush (and not Olmert) described this as an "ideological struggle" and "monumental conflict" and raised the specter of al-Qaida. In so doing, he was reframing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a way that is out of sync with how the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians, Hamas included, understand their own predicament.

This is grievance-based, and there are parameters for a resolution, not an absolutist rejection of the other. The defining color is grey, not the President’s preferred black and white. The Palestinians want an end to occupation and statehood on the 1967 lines. And while Hamas has not formally recognized Israel’s right to exist, they are developing their own discourse for accepting a future two-state reality.

Hamas is not al-Qaida. They are in a struggle with al-Qaida and are attacked by al-Qaida leaders. This perspective of there being a grievance that can be redressed is shared by the majority of Muslims and Arabs (yes, a highly radicalized, but small, minority reject Israel and the West in absolute terms). For Israelis this is about security and gaining acceptance, not expansionist Biblical claims (and yes, the tiny extreme minority of Israelis do embrace a fundamentalist religious vision of no surrender).

The two leaders stepped on even shakier ground when delivering an educational lesson on democracy. The US and Israel, with Arab and European support thrown in for good measure, have been rather transparently and pro-actively attempting to overturn the results of the Palestinian parliamentary elections of January 2006. The gods of hypocrisy must have been blushing as Bush waxed lyrical on defeating the extremist "with a better idea ... It’s called democracy."

The president referred to the young democracies in Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon -- all besieged in no small measure due to a combination of US incompetence and ideological rigidity. Rather than shining models, this troubling threesome have become cautionary tales that have set back the regional cause of democratization.

Reimposing single-party rule in the Palestinian political arena is hardly an act of democracy building. Palestine could have been the test-tube case for bringing militants into mainstream electoral politics and the responsibilities of governance. The boycott meant that this was not even tried.

The talk of Palestinian suffering was Olmert’s moment for upstaging Bush in the hypocrisy stakes. Olmert’s commitment to not being "indifferent to the human suffering in Gaza" and providing for humanitarian needs was far preferable to the revolting rhetoric of the right wing in Israel and very possibly sincere.

But Olmert is apparently a recent convert to the cause of Palestinian suffering, and the disgust he expressed at the "brutality," "cruelty" and "viciousness" of events in Gaza might also be applied to his own policies in the West Bank. If the prime minister has gotten religion on alleviating Palestinian suffering, then a long and credible list of accounts and policy recommendations from human rights organizations, the World Bank, UN agencies and others are all available to him in the public domain.

Finally, Syria and the best reason of all for not making peace -- simply no time. The president said it’s up to Israel: "They can handle their own negotiations with Syria. If the prime minister wants to negotiate with Syria, he doesn’t need me to mediate." (The US is previously reported to have requested that Israel not engage with Damascus.) Olmert cast the US unwillingness to mediate thus: "The president of the United States, he’s got many other things to do." Preventing another war in the Levant -- sorry, too busy.

This may be my own bias talking, but I think that Olmert was to some degree playing up to his host. By virtue of its predicament and of being so immediately and directly affected by events, Israel often does take a more pragmatic line. Israel has indirectly negotiated ceasefires in the past with Hamas and has recently put out feelers to Damascus.

Olmert understandably will preciously guard the relationship with Washington, whoever is president. But Israel must go much further in rejecting a clash-of-civilizations-derived policy frame for the Middle East and must deal with its neighbors, in Gaza and Syria included, from a realist perspective.

I think there are also voices within the US government and, in particular, in the state department that are looking for ways to more constructively and pragmatically engage with the region.

How does that Pointer Sisters’ chorus go? "I’m about to lose control/and I think I like it." The president may be so excited, but others will have to assume responsibility or be left picking up the pieces.