Haaretz:

Some 27 percent of Israelis believe that U.S. President Barack Obama is anti-Semitic, according to a Haaretz-Dialog poll conducted this week. Anpther 56 percent questions said they don't believe politicians who call Obama anti-Semitic or hostile to Israel, or who say he is "striving to topple Netanyahu." On the whole, Obama's popularity may be declining in American public opinion, but a sweeping majority of Israelis think his treatment of this country is friendly and fair. Advertisement The poll, which was conducted Tuesday and Wednesday and supervised by Professor Camil Fuchs, comes after reports of a crisis in diplomatic relations due to Israel's announcement during a visit by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden that it will build 1,600 housing units in East Jerusalem.

Jpost:

Some 27 percent of Israelis believe that U.S. President Barack Obama is anti-Semitic, according to a Haaretz-Dialog poll conducted this week.

Anpther 56 percent questions said they don't believe politicians who call Obama anti-Semitic or hostile to Israel, or who say he is "striving to topple Netanyahu."

On the whole, Obama's popularity may be declining in American public opinion, but a sweeping majority of Israelis think his treatment of this country is friendly and fair. 

The Poll itself:

Do you support Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's decision to continue construction in Jerusalem ?
Yes, 62% No 26%

Do you think that Prime Minister Netanyahu's decision will lead to more or less pressure from the United States ?
More 61%, less 9%, same 21%

Do you think that President Obama is:
pro-Arab 42%, pro-Israel 9% or neutral 34%

Some claim that if Israel were to withdraw to the '67 lines - including leave the Golan - it would enjoy peace for generations since the Arabs would no longer have any claims against Israel.  Do you think that this is a naive
or simplistic view   or a reasonable and correct assessment?
Naive and simplistic 82% Reasonable and correct 8%

The idea that Obama is antisemitic?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Absurd Claim: Obama Anti-Semitic (grantlawrence.blogspot.com)
• Benjamin Netanyahu's brother-in-law calls Barack Obama anti-Semitic (telegraph.co.uk)
• Clinton demands concessions from Israel (newstatesman.com)
• 'Deep crisis' in Israel-US ties (news.bbc.co.uk)
• 5 more fresh articles...

Never mind STOP ALL construction ...but to get back out of the Obama dog house..
WaPo:

Israeli officials said the U.S. also wants Israel to make a significant confidence-building gesture toward the Palestinians, including possibly

• releasing hundreds of Palestinian prisoners
• turning over additional areas of the West Bank to Palestinian control.

J Street Backing Obama on this one somehow reminds me of the CPUSA's turn on a dime in their comments on Hitler before and after 8/24/1939

Republican Jewish Coalition: The Obama administration has used harsh and intentionally undiplomatic language to exacerbate tensions with our ally Israel in the wake of Vice President Biden's visit there. The strident and unwarranted escalation of tension, which has turned a minor diplomatic embarrassment into a major international incident, has raised serious concerns about the administration's Israel policy from a variety of mainstream voice. It should be noted, there has been no similar official U.S. condemnation of any Palestinian action, including recent rioting on the Temple Mount and official Palestinian plans to name a public square for a female terrorist responsible for the worst single terror attack on Israeli soil.

ADL: "We cannot remember an instance when such harsh language was directed at a friend and ally of the United States.  One can only wonder how far the U.S. is prepared to go in distancing itself from Israel in order to placate the Palestinians in the hope they see it is in their interest to return to the negotiating table."

The Wall Street Journal editors wrote, "Our enemies get courted; our friends get the squeeze. It has happened to Poland, the Czech Republic, Honduras and Colombia. Now it's Israel's turn."

WSJ article:

The U.S. makes a diplomatic crisis out of a blunder.

In recent weeks, the Obama Administration has endorsed "healthy relations" between Iran and Syria, mildly rebuked Syrian President Bashar Assad for accusing the U.S. of "colonialism," and publicly apologized to Moammar Gadhafi for treating him with less than appropriate deference after the Libyan called for "a jihad" against Switzerland.

When it comes to Israel, however, the Administration has no trouble rising to a high pitch of public indignation. On a visit to Israel last week, Vice President Joe Biden condemned an announcement by a mid-level Israeli official that the government had approved a planning stage--the fourth out of seven required--for the construction of 1,600 housing units in north Jerusalem. Assuming final approval, no ground will be broken on the project for at least three years.

But neither that nor repeated apologies from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prevented Secretary of State Hillary Clinton--at what White House sources ostentatiously said was the personal direction of President Obama--from calling the announcement "an insult to the United States." White House political chief David Axelrod got in his licks on NBC's Meet the Press yesterday, lambasting Israel for what he described as "an affront."

Related articles by Zemanta

• AIPAC Lashes Out At Obama Administration Over Israel Statements (huffingtonpost.com)
• Obama aide stokes US-Israel row (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Obama's Turn Against Israel (online.wsj.com)
• J Street Backs Obama in Row With Israel (blogs.wsj.com)

Maybe I'm Getting Paranoid ... About Obama

• Marty Peretz
• January 26, 2010 | 6:46 pm

I've just read the transcript [1] of the president's remarks about Haiti, the ones he made on January 15. He noted that, in addition to assistance from the United States, significant aid had also come from "Brazil, Mexico, Canada, France, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic, among others." Am I missing another country that truly weighed in with truly consequential assistance? Ah, yes. There it is. Right there "among others." Yes, the country to which I refer is "among others," that one.

The fact is that, next to our country, Israel sent the largest contingent of trained rescue workers, doctors, and other medical personnel. The Israeli field hospital was the only one on the ground that could perform real surgery, which it did literally hundreds of times, while delivering--as of last week--at least 16 babies, including one premature infant and three caesarians. The first 250-odd Israelis were real professionals, and they were supplemented by others, also professionals. And to these can be added the many organized Jews from the Diaspora who, in solidarity with Israel, also went on a work pilgrimage, an aliyah, in solidarity with Haiti.

It's not that Israeli participation in the Haiti horror was being kept secret. I myself saw it reported several times on television--on ABC [2], NBC [3], CBS [4], and CNN [5].

So didn't Obama notice? For God's sake, everybody noticed the deep Israeli involvement. I understand that Obama doesn't like Middle East narratives that do not contain "one side and the other side" equal valence. But he couldn't have that here. The Arabs don't care a fig, not for their impoverished and backward own, and certainly not for strangers. That's why their presence in Haiti amounted to a couple of bucks from Saudi Arabia and maybe from some other sheikhs.

An afterthought: Who would want Arab participation in the rescue effort? This was serious work and dangerous work. Amateurs weren't welcome.

Yes, I think that the labors of the Israelis were edited out of Obama's speech, either by his speechwriters (who have made dissing Israel their forté) or by his own oh-so-delicate but dishonest censoring mechanism.

Advisers ....

Merrill 'american jews are the problem' Mcpeak

Samantha 'criticism of Obama is about what's good for the jews' Power

Zbig 'american jews are too powerful Mcarthyites, and Walt and Mearsheimer were right' Brzezinski

Robert 'I do negotiate with Hamas' Malley

Susan 'let's appoint Jimmy Carter and Jim Baker as chief middle east negotiators' Rice

Steven Walt

Charles Freeman

JEREMIAH WRIGHT....

Edited out by his speechwriters?

Maybe, but certainly because they fear his personal 'proclivities'. The other more troubling explanation is, I fear, far more likely.

And for you Marty .. sure you are paranoid, but he real question is, ARE YOU BEING PARANOID ENOUGH?

Mideast envoy George Mitchell has threatened that the U.S. could freeze aid to Israel if the country fails to advance peace talks, YNetNews.com reported.

Mitchell said the U.S. can legally cut its support for aid to Israel and that all options must remain open, YNet reports, though he clarified on PBS that the U.S. wants to put pressure on both sides in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

The remarks come on the eve of his trip to Israel, aiming to bolster a peace process that failed to get back off the ground during the first year of the Obama administration.

"We think that the negotiation should last no more than two years," Mitchell said in an interview on PBS' "Charlie Rose." "We hope the parties agree. Personally I think it can be done in a shorter period of time."

COMPLETE MORONS
WAY TO GO RAHM!

I've been saying this for so long now I've lost patience:

JERUSALEM -- A new poll shows only 6 percent of Israeli Jews see President Barack Obama's administration as pro-Israel, while 50 percent see it as pro-Palestinian.

That is a dramatic change from the previous U.S. administration of George W. Bush, which 88 percent termed "pro-Israel" and just 2 percent labeled pro-Palestinian.

Many Israelis reject Obama's call for a total settlement freeze and have come to see him as overly sympathetic to Palestinian claims.

The poll, taken after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said for the first time he supported a demilitarized Palestinian state, found 36 percent of respondents viewed Obama as neutral.

Netanyahu's advisers and aides offered varying explanations for Israelis' negative view of Obama, ranging from blaming the media for focusing on the perception of strained relations between Washington and Jerusalem to the belief that Obama faulted Israel for the lack of peace in the Middle East.

Last week, Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported that the prime minister believes Obama wants to create a confrontation with Israel to help him improve relations with the Arab world, aides said.

This has been OBVIOUS from the moment he appointed people like Merrill Mcpeak, Brezhinski, and Powers. OVER A YEAR AGO. AS A CANDIDATE.

The stark reality is worse. Not only is he a believer in Walt and Mearsheimer...

Rahm notwithstanding, Mr. Obama has a PROBLEM with people who happen to be Jewish, ESPECIALLY if they believe the absolute existence of AN Israel is compulsory in this world.
His long membership under his religious mentor leaves NO OTHER EXPLANATION POSSIBLE for the gestalt of his actions

Where will this end?
It is UNBELIEVABLE...hot off the wires

Put it in the catalog with the others.
You know... Glover, Penn, Cindy.


CARTER.

And now Obama.

PORT OF SPAIN, April 17 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday greeted and shook hands with Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez during an impromptu meeting with the anti-U.S. leader at the Summit of the Americas.

Photographs released by the Venezuelan government showed Chavez, a fierce foe of former President George W. Bush, smiling and clasping hands with Obama at the start of the summit of Latin American and Caribbean leaders in Trinidad.

HARMLESS TO OUR ENEMIES

TREACHEROUS TO OUR FRIENDS

Mr. Obama would you have been so jovial with the leaders of South Africa in the 1960's?

So happy in greeting Ross Barnett?

So warm with a never to be out-ni**ered George Wallace?

Would there be anything but disdain for such men? Why is there not disdain here?

We have not forgotten the words of McPeak, Brezhinski, Powers, Wright.

Do you really have a  problem?

HAARETZ, this year:
The United States security coordinator for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, retired general James Jones, is preparing an extremely critical report of Israel's policies in the territories and its attitude toward the Palestinian Authority's security services.

A few copies of the report's executive summary (or, according to some sources, a draft of it) have been given to senior Bush Administration officials, and it is reportedly arousing considerable discomfort. In recent weeks, the administration has been debating whether to allow Jones to publish his full report, or whether to tell him to shelve it and make do with the summary, given the approaching end of President George Bush's term.

Jones was appointed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice following the Annapolis peace conference last November
According to both Israeli and American sources, the envoy's conclusions about Israel are scathing. Israelis who met with Jones on his most recent visit here a few weeks ago, including Israel Defense Forces officers, said their impression was that the report would be "very harsh, and make Israel look very bad."

Jones is apparently critical of Israel on two key issues. One is its fairly broad definition of its security interests in the West Bank under any final-status agreement. The other is its attitude toward the PA security services.

Are we clear yet on Obama's policy appointments where the jews who live in Israel are concerned? AS ADVERTISED.

1) The PA are mafioso with land
2) The PA ARE going to get wiped by HAMAS one way or the other