In the list of foreseeable consequences from the Obami’s assault on Israel is the radicalization of more moderate Arab leaders, who can’t be seen as less aggressive than the Obama team in insisting on unilateral concessions by Israel. As this report explains:
Jordan’s leader also delivered in an interview Monday with The Wall Street Journal a rebuke of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, charging that his policy of building homes for Jewish families in East Jerusalem has pushed Jordanian-Israeli relations to their lowest point since a 1994 peace treaty.
Jordan’s King Abdullah II said he will push the Obama administration next week to impose on Israel the terms and time-line for new peace talks with the Palestinians, as concerns mount inside his government that the stalled dialogue could fuel a new round of violence in the Middle East that targets moderate Arab states…
King Abdullah’s calls for Mr. Obama to essentially dictate the terms for Israeli-Palestinian talks is feeding into a policy debate in Washington over how hard to push Mr. Netanyahu.
So to review: the Obami picked a fight over an issue on which no Israeli government can relent, and that in the past has never risen to the level of public confrontation between the two nations, let alone necessitated a “condemnation” by the U.S. The Palestinians have reacted by taking to the streets. The Arab states are demanding Obama turn up the heat even further. The Israelis have told the Obama team they aren’t about to knuckle under to its demands on building in Jerusalem. Are we closer to peace? Or have the Obami managed to inflame and aggravate the situation, raising Palestinian expectations and increasing Israeli anxiety? And meanwhile, the signal is unmistakable — to the mullahs in Tehran, to Iran’s Arab neighbors, and to Israel — that the U.S. is an unpredictable, flaky ally. It is a recipe for violence and instability.