Haaretz article by Ari Shavit shares the concerns that I've been writing about.

Bibi has to say "no" to Obama's demands on Jerusalem and to indirect negotiations on core issues (which is equivalent to appointing Obama as binding arbitrator).  There could be awful consequences to doing this, and Bibi has to make some reasonable offer to compromise.  If Obama were forced to reiterate his demand for what amounts to binding arbitration, some more people might wake up and say hey what is going on here....

Obama is alinsky-izing us big time now.  He has put the global spotlight on us and is shouting:  look at these people who are flouting the will of literally the entire world.

Thing is:  if  Netanyahu stops building in Jerusalem, then boom the status quo has changed and the default position in subsequent negotations is that Ramat Shlomo, Western Wall etc. will go to the Palestinians.

Moreover, there is no indication whatsoever that Obama has anything other than the most hostile intentions to us.  He has made no attempt to speak to the Israeli people about making scrificaes for peace or similar Arafat/Clinton-isms.  His demands to Netanyahu indicate that he plans for the US to essentially do the negotiating on the behalf of the Palestinians (euphemistically called "proximity talks").  There seems to be a failure of imagination regarding how anti-Israel Obama could actually turn out to be.

If the Obama regime intends to railroad us into a situation where we have a hostile Palestinian state a few hundred meters away, and no real hope of US support in the event that they start a war (which they would do with help from Hezbollah and other quarters) ... then we are best off giving Obama a principled "No" even if that is going to lose American aid, turn us into a pariah etc.