It isn't a question of must, it's a question of stance. Iran certainly isn't an innocent party in all this, but in the present it has exercised a willingness to pursue detente diplomatically and pragmatically, a willingness that Israel (as yet) has not. Israel wants peace, but its political leadership has failed continually to demonstrate a drive for, let alone openness toward an equitable peace. As with the sticky issues of the settlements, the default bargaining position has seemed to be "capitulate and we will have achieved it". That isn't peace between equals. That's peace between victors and losers, greaters and lessers. No nation state or people on the planet, yours included, is going to grant someone the benefit of the doubt when what they want from you is asymmetric.
It goes beyond base distrust and well into base contempt for regarding Iran as an equal party to a diplomatic solution. Iran has quietly abandoned that self-held belief for the sake of getting something done, and Israel, for probably a multitude of reasons, still has yet to catch up and adjust its tact. Probably a great deal of it is as mundane as ego of the principal actors involved in all the bluster and grandstanding. There is implicit resistance there that builds against changing a direction when considerable time, money, and material has been invested into advancing it. That Iran got there first isn't a strike against Israel, but it nonetheless remains a problem that Israel has to grit its teeth and fix if it is to be at all serious about a realistic peace.
And what I'm saying is that that's overly sparkly finish on a myriad of differing opinions, some of which explicitly argue that the path forward should not be an equivalent tit-for-tat exchange of concessions with each side viewed as an equal party to the solution. That undercurrent has argued that the path forward is to wring concessions out of Iran and throw some crumbs at it afterward, after the side doing all the wringing gets some nebulous idea that it's satisfied. If that undercurrent remains unexpressed forever, then fantastic. Just be wary.
And no shit lobbies aren't evil, but how does that at all pertain to what I'm saying? They don't have to be bad, objectionable people to order a course of madness, with a side of geopolitical suicide. I'm sure John McCain is nice to children and an affable person most of the time, when he isn't talking to his wife. Doesn't change the fact that he's the most ludicrous fucking aspirant to the arena of international diplomacy I've seen in public in quite some time, has quite possibly been gravely wrong on every single diplomatic decision point going back years, and shows no sign of stopping. That he's probably a mostly okay human being has no bearing on how I feel about the insane adventures he wants your nation to embark upon. Ditto AIPAC.
