Israeli settlers & analysts: "Don't let Obama sacrifice Israel in hopes Jihadist juggernaut will eat America last!"

Samarian (Shomron) Communities' liason, David Ha'ivri, opposes the Obama/Baker/Hamilton/Mearsheimer Middle East policy that favor from Arab world is predicated on weakening Israel towards annihilation by means of a Palestinian state on Judea and Samaria. Ha'ivri urges the West to redirect its wrong-minded Middle East strategy away from the Zionist settlements and towards the true obstacle to peace - Islamic imperialism against non-Muslims - whose aspirations for domination are global.

The Jerusalem-based author, Moshe Dann, a former Assistant Professor of History at City University of New York analyzes the Obama Administration's motives and strategies towards Israel and the Muslim world in a recent series of articles
First, Mr. Dann's background perspective on the legality of Israel's West Bank settlements and who deemed them" illegal" (from How settlements became illegal in the Op-Ed section of July 23rd's Jerusalem Post):
... The designation of "Palestine" as a "Jewish National Home," incorporated in the British Mandate and established by international agreements adopted by the League of Nations and US Congress, guarantees Israel's sovereign rights in this area. All Jewish settlement, therefore, was and is legal.< Many legal experts accepted Israel's right to "occupy" and settle its historic homeland (which was de-occupied by Jordan's  losing Six-Day War in 1967), because the areas had been illegally occupied by invading Arab countries since 1948.

One organization, however - the International Committee of the Red Cross - disagreed. Meeting secretly in the early 1970s in Geneva, the ICRC determined that Israel was in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Based on the Hague Convention, GC IV was drawn up after World War II to protect innocent civilians and restrict brutal occupations. Unilaterally, the ICRC turned it into a weapon to delegitimize and demonize Israel.

As far as is known, the ICRC did not rely on any legal precedents; it made up "the law."

Judge and jury, its decisions lacked the pretense of due process. Since all decisions and protocols of the ICRC in this matter are closed, even the identities of the people involved are secret. And there is no appeal. Without transparency or judicial ethics, ICRC rulings became "international law." Its condemnations of Israel provide the basis for accusing Israel of "illegal occupation" of all territory conquered in 1967.
Mr. Dann analyzes Pres. Obama's Middle East strategy in his Sacrificing Israel published in the American Thinker on May 22, 2009

Linking US action against Iran with freezing settlement building, destroying Jewish communities and establishing a second Arab Palestinian state is a set-up for Israel's demonization and destruction. For President Obama, it's a win-win. 

No matter what happens, Israel will be blamed.  Pres. Obama knows that short of military intervention nothing will prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Making Israeli concessions the key to stopping Iran, therefore allows Obama a perfect excuse: Israel didn't do enough; it's Israel's fault. 

"Israeli intransigence" will be given as the reason for America's failure in Iran. 'If only Israel had evacuated more settlements, stopped building in Yehuda and Shomron, dismantled more checkpoints, given more aid to Hamas, stopped demolishing illegal Arab buildings, etc., we could have done something,' Obama will say.
Author, Moshe Dann elaborates in his  "Obama's Real Agenda: Israel's Dimona Nuclear Facility" in the American Thinker on June 16th:
Well aware of terrorist threats to America, and concerned about investments and interests throughout the world, Obama sees pushing Israel against the wall as a convenient way of deflecting Muslim terrorism. As long as Islamists think that Obama is on their side, they'll refrain from attacking, keep the oil flowing and the prices low. 
Iran may even be willing to make cosmetic (and temporary) adjustments so that Obama can claim that the crisis has been defused. And Israel will pay the price: sanctions, boycotts, diplomatic and economic isolation similar to the international pressures that broke South Africa's apartheid regime.
Obama's speech is an ominous warning of what he is prepared to do in order to strip Israel of its military advantage. Along with the loss of control over Judea and Samaria, territories that are vital for Israel's security and access to water reserves, faced with Arab terrorist militias backed by Arab armies, Israel will be completely vulnerable. 

The face of this Jihad is not one of ranting, bearded clerics, but smooth-talking, clean-shaven smiling apostles of peace and the Philosopher-King of Hope.
Dann in his, "The 'Rape' of Israel" June 26th, goes further:
Assisted by Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Dennis Ross, Dan Kurtzer, and others, Pres Obama seems intent on taking Israel down. In addition to the usual left wing Jewish organizations, the Reform Movement's PAC, Americans for Peace Now, a collection of marginal anti-Israel organizations have also lined up for the gang rape. 
The analogy is appropriate: A stronger power forces his will upon a weaker victim regardless of what is fair, moral, and without any concern for the trauma he inflicts. The rapist (in this analogy) does what he thinks is good for himself. He wants what he wants ...
President Obama and his Jewish (and some Israeli) facilitators may believe that what they are doing is for Israel's own good. That might be acceptable if they explained how it works. 
Would a second Arab Palestinian state run by terrorists enhance Israel's security, promote peace with Israel and in the region, resolve the issues of Jerusalem, and millions of "Palestinian refugees"?  
Would the Palestinians and Arab states recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, and acknowledge facts of Jewish and world history? Would the proposed state include Jews with full rights, as Israel includes Arabs with full rights? 
Nowhere in Obama's agenda are these questions raised or answered. Nowhere is there a hint of how his plan will be carried out, nor concern for what might happen if things don't go according to his visions. That's understandable, since his policy, like sexual aggression, is single minded.