Israeli myopia on Obama and Mubarak?

Reuters has a story entitled, "Israel shocked by Obama's 'betrayal' of Mubarak". It's a curious piece, since it portrays Israeli political opinion as bizarrely, universally, and stupidly parochial.

One comment by Aviad Pohoryles in the daily Maariv was entitled "A Bullet in the Back from Uncle Sam." It accused Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of pursuing a naive, smug, and insular diplomacy heedless of the risks.

Who is advising them, he asked, "to fuel the mob raging in the streets of Egypt and to demand the head of the person who five minutes ago was the bold ally of the president ... an almost lone voice of sanity in a Middle East?"

"The politically correct diplomacy of American presidents throughout the generations ... is painfully naive."

Political correctness? Pahoryles is either a troll or an idiot.

Obama and the U.S. are in a no-win situation. Supporting Mubarak inflames anti-American sentiment, denouncing him jeopardizes alliances all over the world. Mubarak's willingness to maintain Sadat's peace may be the only thing that matters to Israelis, but the U.S. has a different set of priorities. The U.S. is trying to avoid creating another long-term anti-American regime. That might be an untenable goal, but it's one worth pursuing, and Obama's doing his best to find the path to that goal. Political correctness my ass, this is political expedience.

Fueling the protests? That's laughable. The protesters aren't shouting, "Obama believes in us," they're shouting, "Mubarak must go!" They didn't start gathering in the streets because the U.S. urged them, and they wouldn't stop marching if the U.S. denounced them.

What would Israel have Obama and the U.S. do, invade? That's about all that could save Mubarak if he has lost the support of the military, as appears to be the case.

I have a hard time believing Israeli opinion is either that united or that simpleminded. Did I fall for click-bait? From Reuters, yet?