Americans vs. Obama's anti-Israel policies

Jackson Diehl, in a Washington Post editorial, wrote that the current blockage in the peace process is a US-engineered deadlock, because each Obama demand on Israel caused Abbas to say that the PA will not negotiate unless that demand is met. How could he do otherwise? The Palestinian leader cannot be less pro-Palestinian than the White House. ("No Change On Jerusalem Policy Despite US Pressure," Arutz 7, 26 Mar. 2010)

Lt.-Col. (ret.) Ralph Peters, military analyst and book author (Endless War: Middle Eastern Islam vs. Western Civilization), when asked on Fox News why the US-Israel alliance appears to have declined so dramatically, said ... Israel wants to live in peace with its neighbors, and its neighbors want Israel destroyed. The President refuses to understand that...This is our first anti-Israel President... ("US Mil. Analyst: Obama is the 1^st Anti-Israel President," Arutz 7, 1 Apr. 2010)

In a NY Times op-ed, former US Congressman R. Wexler, head of the Center for ME Peace, wrote, Obama has made a major shift in US policy in the region by stating this week that solving the ME dispute is a vital national security interest of the US. During a news conference...to mark the end of his nuclear security summit in Washington, Obama claimed that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure. ("Obama taking reins on policy towards ME conflict," ICEJ News, 15 Apr. 2010. Why did Obama use Blood and treasure? See www.doubletongued.org/index.php/citations/blood_and_treasure_1/)