Haaretz, online recently, here, "Why don't Russian-speaking Jews trust Obama?"
It's a little wierd, actually plenty wierd, and it shows how the press there is spinning things because he is not as pliant as George W. Bush, nor as tight with AIPAC as Bush was, nor apparently as dear a friend as Jane Harman. It shows Israel has its share of Michele Bachmann types there, a different religion but equally ardent with an equally uneven keel.
Read it. See what you think.
Obama is positioned more as not standing in Isreal's way on their Iran policy, rather than being a willing tool to effectuate their hopes for them, (as Bush was in Iraq and seemed to be with Iran).
_______UPDATE________
Without links about Bush-AIPAC or Harman-AIPAC being given, here are two interesting links - about the "green light" vs "not exactly a green light" concerning US public statement about Israel being a sovereign state responsible for its own policies and actions; reported by Haaretz here and then here.
It's interesting theater because if Israel were to want to bomb things in Iran presumably they'd need to overfly Iraq where the US controls the air and has not said publicly yes or no to any Israeli or other overflight aimed against Iran or for any other purpose; to assisting mid-air refueling or not; nor to providing "bunker-buster" arms if, presumably, Israel lacks such weaponry within its own production and weapons sales industry or at least trails the US in such capabilities.
So US policy on unilateral Israeli action seems to be to say publicly, let them do what they will outside of what we control, but on that we remain publicly silent.
Something seems at least a bit intentionally vague if not duplicitous in leaving the public stances that way.
What's been said in meetings and party-to-party communications is secret, so we in the public are being treated a bit like mushrooms, yes/no; as is the Iranian and Arab leadership, yes/no? Here is a Google with yet more links on the questions.
