Weak reasons for not expecting confrontation w/Obama administration

THE CONFRONTATION CON-GAME
By Barry Rubin
http://rubinreports .blogspot. com/2009/ 04/confrontation -con-game. html
Rubin gives slim reasons not to expect a confrontation between Obama and Israel.

--Only one high-level presidential foreign policy appointment, White House advisor Samantha Power, is clearly anti-Israel.
--The administration appropriated lots of money for Gaza reconstruction but conditions on not giving it to Hamas seem serious and there’s no rush to send funds.
...the PA and Hamas, not Israel, are the barriers to peace. An Obama presidency would be far more dangerous if there was a PA determined to say anything to get a state, get U.S. pressure Israel to massive concessions, and then break its word. The same applies to a Hamas happy to pretend to abandon terrorism and genocidal rhetoric.
****It's a slim reed to expect the Palestinians to again "not miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." ****
...he PA will ...offer nothing. It won’t provide a moderate alternative program to Hamas, stop incitement, accept resettlement of Palestinian refugees in a Palestinian state rather than Israel, make any territorial concessions, or agree that a two-state solution permanently ends the conflict. And it won’t accept Israel as a Jewish state alongside a Palestine which—according to the PA’s own constitution— is an Arab and Muslim state.****But Muslims are entitled to LIE by the Koran itself! For decades, they've said one thing in English and the opposite in Arabic, for domestic consumption.****
...It’s predictable that the PA won’t give those who want to ram through a two-state solution, based only on Israeli concessions, the bare minimum they need to make such a strategy credible. The same point applies to Syria and the Golan Heights. Given that situation, there won’t be a serious broad collision between the United States and Israel over the peace process,... Aside from the other side’s intransigence, which will inhibit U.S. policy from giving them more, is the experience of the historically anti-Israel Obama himself.
He learned in the campaign that he could insult large sections of the American people and abandon the most basic assumptions of American patriotism and get away with it. In contrast, he learned that it is politically costly to attack Israel.***To rely not on Obama's goodwill, admitted not to exist, but on the weak reed of Congressional support is unreliable. **** policies damaging Israel’s security, especially ...futile engagement giving Iran’s regime time to get nuclear weapons. The administration’ s approach also emboldens radical, terrorist, Islamist forces and demoralizes relatively moderate Arab regimes.The biggest loser from Obama’s policy, however, is not Israel but U.S. national interests. Will there come a point when the administration realizes this and changes course? ****NO, there will not!***