[S.T.D.]

Although I was wary of Obama because he was a relative unknown and because of his associates (Rev Jeremiah Wright) nevertheless, till now I have been reserving judgement about him. However, I am now beginning to form the opinion that his intent was to proverbially "boil the frog S-L-O-W-L-Y" so that that the frog will not realize what is happening to him till it's too late...

As I am sure, that it's obvious to most that what I mean by the proverbial frog is Israel. Obama was very careful to make all the right noises before the elections in order not to alienate potential Democrat voters who are also friends of Israel. But now that he is in the box seat, it is obvious that he has started the fire to boil the water.

To be sure, he is still uttering soothing voices that he is not interested in harming Israel's security interests but make no mistake about it, he has begun an unprecedented process of shifting US policy away from Israel.

I am not necessarily against him pressuring Israel to make concessions, because in order to make peace BOTH sides will have to make concessions. But I am definitiley against him if he only pressures Israel and not the Palestinian Arabs. Which is what he seems to be doing ....

Any thoughts?

[tgs]

I have said it all along. We can not expect the American leaders to be bigger zionists than the Israeli leaders. If our government does not demonstrate that we believe we really have the right to be here, then why should Obama or any other American president think so?

[brraverishhh]

Did this thought occur to you after hearing Michael Savage say it as he did about a week ago?

No it didn't. I didn't see him and I hardly know who he is. Those thoughts occurred to me entirely on my own after reading the latest utterings, over the last few weeks, from the powers to be in the USA, about the Middle East...

Let me reiterate andak, I really have been making an effort not to judge Obama prematurely. Just read my postings in this forum for the last 6 months or so and judge for yourself. But now, I am beginning to be concerned about him. I hope I'll be wrong.

[Raj_Copi_Jin]

Today the US implied it would roll back most of its support in the UN for Israel if Israel did not agree to a 100% freeze and ultimate abandonment of all of Yesha and east Jersualem including all of the old city and Kotel.

I think it's pretty much over for US-Israeli relations.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

I think we should take the US at their word. Unilateral withdrawal from 92% of Yesha and a wind down of political and military aid. Set an end date for sharing intelligence. Reduce the status of diplomatic relations to something less than an embassy in each nation. End all Israeli military sales to the US and military cooperation. Close down the F-35 JSF partnership, wind down the American antimissile radar in the Negev and close down cooperation with the Arrow-3 program. Israel should now be free to sell whatever to whomever w/o any restriction or pressure from the US, including India, Russia and China.

[MannoFr]

BTW new construction in 'settlements' in ALREADY down 39% this year.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

[Paul Bunyan]

Also isn't restrictions on 'natural growth' pretty much the same thing they did in WW2? Isn't limiting the number of Jews allowed to exist what the definition of genocide is?

[Drugmachine]

Abbas already passed on a good deal and reiterated that the official PA response to everything is to 'do nothing.'
http://wwwjackbenimble.blogspot.com/...e-process.html

From news article:

Instead, he says, he will remain passive. "I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements," he said. "Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life." In the Obama administration, so far, it's easy being Palestinian.

[9mm_fan]

Even Egypt is angry that Obama is practically begging Iran to go nuclear.
From news article:
Egypt is also planning for the likelihood that the administration won’t inhibit Iran’s nuclear ambitions. In a statement released on Sunday, a spokesperson for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak announced that, “With regard to attempts to say Iran is a common danger, President Mubarak’s and Egypt’s priority is on the Palestinian issue.” Egypt’s strategic thinking is clear: if Iran is to become a nuclear state, its best option is to ensure that Israel is significantly weakened via the peace process, and thereby prevented from engaging Iran in armed (and perhaps nuclear) conflict. Or, to put it another way, Egypt is shrewdly calculating that its interests are better protected with one regional power than with two - and it has noticed that the Obama administration is more eager to take a hard line with Israel than with Iran, despite Cairo’s own distaste for the latter.

[Raj_Copi_Jin]

I'm reasonably sure that when Hezbollah takes over Lebanon in the next elections that Obama will state that all of the Golan must be sacrificed unilaterally as well. As a result, we can expect a WMD attack on Israel from Hezbollah. The US will call this a justified defense of Golan. Within 3 years you will no longer be debating the 1967 red lines, you will be hoping they let you keep the 1949 Armistice lines. And with 4 million Palestinians at the border poised for a human wave into Israel it's all a moot point.

[PhillipHer]

None, none at all. There are never any requirements placed on the Palestinians, ever.