An actual friend of the Jewish state might look at things differently. Did Obama notice that Mubarak's exit, however well deserved, has thrown into the doubt the most important peace treaty Israel was ever able to sign with an Arab neighbor? Egypt, which had been, at best, an intermittent ally in thwarting Iranian arms shipments to Hamas, has now become much more cordial with Tehran, with unknown consequences for the sensitive border between Egypt and Gaza.
The president has been slow to comment upon it, but surely he has noticed that Syria is in flames, and that Bashar al-Assad has already attempted to divert anger away from himself and toward Israel by sending hundreds of Palestinians to breach the border on Israeli Independence Day. Turkey, formerly Israel's best Muslim ally, has slid into hostility under the leadership of an Islamist party.
At the U.N., the General Assembly will vote in September on declaring the statehood of "Palestine." What then? Will Israel's efforts to disarm the Palestinians in Gaza be considered an act of war against a sovereign state?
And what of the Palestinians, with whom Israel would presumably be negotiating these "land swaps"? The president acknowledged that "Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with" those "who do not recognize its right to exist." How to account then for Obama's timing?
The Palestinian Authority and Hamas have just inked a unity accord. After the ceremony in Cairo, Mahmoud Abbas made clear that Hamas had surrendered none of its extremism to get the deal: "It is not required of Hamas to recognize Israel. We will form a government of technocrats and we will not ask Hamas to recognize Israel."
Yet at this, of all moments, Obama chose to issue a public demand that Israel pre-emptively surrender its essential security buffer of land. It's nothing less than a reward for Hamas and for the Palestinians' unswerving dedication to Israel's destruction.
A false friend can do more damage than an open enemy.