It seems everyone could pinpoint something he was happy with in Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's historic speech at Bar-Ilan University this week.

This speech did not sound like a cop-out.

The Right was very happy with the strong nationalistic language used throughout the speech. This speech did not sound like a cop-out and it was not a speech of someone under pressure. It was a strongly Zionist speech.

The Left was happy with the small, but significant step taken by Netanyahu in recognizing the need for a Palestinian state. Of course, for political reasons, the Left will focus on the mantra claiming this is a significant step, but that "it was not enough". However, even President Barack Obama and the European Union recognized the fact that this was a significant step in the direction they are aiming.

At the same time, everyone knows that when Netanyahu mentioned the Palestinian state, he mentioned it with so many "ifs" that it is unlikely it will be materialized during his term as Prime Minister. This created a situation where even the Judea, Samaria and Gaza Council could ignore this sentence from the speech and express its support for the policy outlined by Netanyahu.

With all of this masterfully crafted political rhetoric, I see one serious problem in Netanyahu's speech which should not be ignored. It is a problem that anyone who truly wants peace - and I mean real possible peace, not a utopian vision of a peace that will never come - should be identifying.

When Netanyahu was elected, and the right-wing bloc held an overwhelming majority in the Knesset, it was clear to all that the citizens of the State of Israel were asking for a new, alternative direction in which to take the country. The two-state solution had been proven wrong over (Partition Plan) and over (1967 defensive war) and over (Oslo) and over (Wye River) and over (Camp David) and over (Road Map) and over (Disengagement) and over (whatever Olmert has been doing behind closed doors during his term) again. The Israeli population was looking for another solution. Israel was looking for a courageous leader who would provide an alternative solution to the conflict and shift away from the direction which has been taken recently.

In an effort to support such an approach, which was clearly demanded by the Israeli population, Knesset Member Tzipi Hotobeli (Likud) recently organized a conference outlining four possible alternatives to the two-state solution. This was a clear attempt to demonstrate that, even though American pressure was closed-minded in its refusal to try new, creative solutions, there were other ideas out there which could and should be aimed for.

Of course, anybody who honestly analyzed the various solutions presented in that conference can quickly see that they each have some serious shortcomings. However, what MK Hotobeli did was prove that there were different directions which could be taken. While some could claim that they felt these alternatives were not realistic, one thing that was clear is that the two-state solution had been proven - through many attempts and at the cost of many Palestinian and Jewish lives - to be unrealistic. When choosing between a solution which has been proven to be unrealistic and a solution which just seems unrealistic, any rational mind would opt for the latter. The shortcomings of the various theories could be worked out, if only qualified people would dedicate some time and energy to solving those problems.

Netanyahu was asked, through the ballot box, for a new direction. The Israeli population asked Netanyahu to

Netanyahu was asked to try an approach which has not already been repeatedly proven wrong.

invest in alternative solutions and to resolve their shortcomings. Netanyahu was asked to try an approach which has not already been repeatedly proven wrong. Netanyahu was asked to lead the way towards a new direction. Instead, Netanyahu kept the same direction. Instead, Netanyahu refused to show the necessary leadership to bring about real change, and adopted a position which will make the status quo most likely continue for most of his mandate.

Some are happy with the status quo. However, those who know some recent Israeli history understand that every time a Prime Minister raised the hopes of the Palestinians by mentioning a two-state solution, it was not a peaceful status quo that followed when this solution was proven impossible to attain. Rather, it was a long cycle of violence. Also, those who understand Israeli politics know that a status quo now can mean a return to a suicidal vision of the two-state solution in a few years, should the Left be re-elected.

Instead of strengthening the status quo by refusing to change directions, and putting so many conditions on the two-state solution that it has become unrealistic, Netanyahu needed to be the leader Israelis elected him to be - one who would pave a new, alternative path to lead the region to an age of peace and prosperity. At a time when Israel needed true leadership, he simply fell short.