Vague dismay at your somewhat objectionable behavior

The Gilo decision exposes Obama's call for a settlement freeze as a joke (not that anyone really thought otherwise at this point). It ignores the White House's stated demand that Israel stop new settlement construction. So I went to my inbox to see how the White House would respond. Here's White House press secretary Robert Gibbs:

We are dismayed at the Jerusalem Planning Committee's decision to move forward on the approval process for the expansion of Gilo in Jerusalem. At a time when we are working to re-launch negotiations, these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed. Neither party should engage in efforts or take actions that could unilaterally pre-empt, or appear to pre-empt, negotiations. The U.S. also objects to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes. Our position is clear: the status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties.

Yeah, you heard right, Bibi: We are dismayed at your objectionable behavior. The fury didn't stop with Gibbs, either. Here's Ian Kelly, the State Department's spokesman:

I think that we find the Jerusalem Planning Committee's decision to move forward on the approval of the - approval process for the expansion of Gilo in Jerusalem as dismaying.

This is at a time when we're working to re-launch negotiations, and we believe that these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed. So we object to this, and we object to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes.

And - just to repeat what we've said all along, our position on Jerusalem is clear. We believe that the - that Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the two parties.

Evan and I were trying to decide whether "dismayed" or "dismaying" is stronger. We're pretty sure it's "dismayed," since the gerund form is less specific. Who finds Netanyahu's behavior dismaying? It could be anyone!

Seriously, folks: I understand that diplomatic language is different than regular language. Gibbs can't walk up to the podium and say What the fuck, Bibi? But this is pathetic. Netanyahu just ignored a demand from the White House and blew off a personal appeal from the president's hand-picked envoy to the region. And the best the U.S. can muster is a timid statement of dismay?

Netanyahu has spent the last few months testing the U.S. And at this point he's got to be pretty confident that -- whatever he does -- the U.S. will not respond with meaningful consequences (or even a stern rebuke). Israel just expropriated more Palestinian land to build 900 new homes, and the only cost was an expression of dismay from the U.S. government. Pretty good deal.