But Wall Street Journal columnist can't, and doesn't, point to any evidence to back up the contentious, GOP-driven spin. (Read: Obama has a problem with Israel.)

Writes Seib [emphasis added]:

From the first weeks of the Obama administration, the two men have been famously feuding over the president's demand that Israel stop all building in East Jerusalem to smooth the way for peace talks with Palestinians.

Gosh, Obama has been “feuding” with the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu since Obama's days in office. That sounds petty. Traditionally, when diplomatic differences arise between the U.S. and its allies, does the press usually portray leaders as “feuding”?

And note how, according to Seib, it's Obama's “demand” that Israel stop building settlements that lead to the instant “feuding.” (i.e. Obama was “getting tough” with Israel.) What Seib doesn't mention is that prior administrations have all made similar demands of Israel. (Does that mean President Bush and his advisors “feuded” with Israeli leaders?) In other words, Obama is simply continuing a well-known U.S. policy.

Yet in the view of Seib, Obama's “demand” regarding settlements is what has sparked the “feuding.”

UPDATED: If Obama is “feuding” with Netanyahu, somebody forgot to tell Obama.

From ABC News, reporting on the aftermath of Israel's controversial weekend assault on an aid flotilla headed for the Gaza Strip, in which nine activists were killed by Israeli forces:

The U.S. is standing by Israel, though, with Obama said to be focused on the long-term goal of Middle East peace.