Months ago, a poll of the Israeli public concluded that six percent of the Israeli public had a positive opinion of President Obama. Today, its possible that figure would be lower.

Israelis are seething over the decision of Israel's Cabinet to freeze construction in the West Bank. They blame leaders of the government and Obama for pressuring Israel on the settlement issue.

Likud Members of the Knesset have joined activists representing the settlers in denouncing Obama. But the criticism is also being leveled at the government which is seen by some as having turned its back on its grassroots supporters.

The question that all sides are asking is why Netanyahu is adopting this course of appeasing Obama. Some speculate that Netanyahu is preparing to pull a "Sharon." Use his current popularity to break the back of the Right and the Likud Party. While we do not believe this to be the case, it is valuable to analyze this possibility. Our friend at Israel Matzav shares our skepticism and does a fine job of analysis which we excerpt below:

Haaretz's Yossi Verter suggests that what Prime Minister Netanyahu may really want is to become the next Ariel Sharon, with Ehud Barak playing the role of Shimon Peres. .... 

Israel Matzav proceeds to dissect this thesis: While there is something to this, there are also a lot of differences that make it unlikely. First, Sharon grew up on the Left and was at least as comfortable being there as he was on the Right. Sharon was a bit like a certain blogger many of us know, who switched from Left to Right after 9/11 and has now gone back to the Left since Obama acceded to power. Sharon grew up on the Left, switched to the Right in the late '70's and switched back to the Left in 2003 or 2004. Netanyahu grew up on the Right. He's not comfortable on the Left (he's comfortable with Barak because Barak seems to have some red lines, unlike most of the Left).

Second, for Netanyahu to make this kind of switch, he's going to have to come up with some way to find someone on the other side with whom he can talk. Because Netanyahu won't give up on Jerusalem and won't withdraw from territory. unilaterally, if he wants to advance the 'peace process,' he needs a negotiating partner. He doesn't have one and he knows it. I believe that what Netanyahu really wants is to say to the Left, "see, I tried, now why do you all still hate me so much?"

Third, Israeli Jews are well to the Right of where Netanyahu is right now. When Sharon wanted to expel all the Jews from Gaza, if he had taken a referendum of the entire country, he would have won a narrow majority. His problem was that because a referendum of the country was so complicated to set up, he only took a referendum of the Likud, which did not support him, and which eventually necessitated his break with the Likud. Netanyahu cannot get support for any deal that the 'Palestinians' will buy except from the Far Left and the 'Israeli Arabs.' And he knows it.

Fourth, Netanyahu has become a follower who is trying to maintain Israel's relations with a hostile administration in Washington (yes, Limor Livnat was right about that). Sharon was initiating things like the Gaza expulsion. Netanyahu is not convinced that further concessions to the 'Palestinians' are the right thing to do, so he won't initiate them, although he may not resist them as vigorously as he ought to resist them.

Fifth, Judea and Samaria are not Gaza. A majority of Jewish Israelis wanted to get us out of Gaza for most of the period from 1987 (the start of the 'first intifada') until 2005. Gaza was always regarded as an ungovernable terror hotbed. No, I don't believe that perception of Gaza was correct (I believe that if we had gone all-out we could have kept it), and I believe that expelling its Jews and abandoning it was a mistake. But it had far less strategic military (and for that matter, religious) value than Judea and Samaria, which are far closer to 'our backyard.' It was far easier to walk away from Gaza than it would be to walk away from Judea and Samaria. And a lot of people believe that by walking away from Gaza, Sharon was trying to set the 'Palestinians' up for failure so that no one (he thought) would pressure us to walk away from Judea and Samaria.

Sixth, as I have discussed many times, Sharon had a series of criminal cases hanging over his head, and felt that by walking away from Gaza, he could get the Leftist prosecutors off his case. Netanyahu hasn't been under any investigation since shortly after he was ousted as Prime Minister the first time (there was a small to-do over the costs of a trip to London during the Second Lebanon War, but it turns out that Netanyahu bore all the personal expenses himself and the furor died down). He has no incentive to mollify the Left by endangering the country in order to save himself or his family members from jail.

So while Verter's comparison has some validity, I believe that it is far-fetched.