Bob Wright explains this semantic but critical distinction:
Policies that would be truly good for Israel (e.g., no more settlements) would be good for America. In that sense, there’s good news for Gary Bauer and Max Boot and Abe Foxman: one of their common refrains that Israel’s and America’s interests are essentially aligned is true, if for reasons they don’t appreciate.
Sadly, the Bauer-Boot-Foxman definition of “pro-Israel” supporting Israel’s increasingly hard-line and self-destructive policies is the official definition. All major American newspapers, so far as I can see, use the term this way. AIPAC is described as “pro-Israel,” but the left-of-AIPAC J Street isn’t, even though its members, like AIPAC’s, favor policies they consider good for Israel.
No doubt this twisted use of “pro-Israel,” and the implied definition of “anti-Israel,” keeps many critics of Israeli policies from speaking out Jewish critics for fear of seeming disloyal, and non-Jewish critics for fear of seeming anti-Semitic.
So, if I’m right, and more speaking out more criticism of Israel’s current policies would actually be good for Israel, then the newspapers and other media outlets that sustain the prevailing usage of “pro-Israel” are, in fact, anti-Israel. I won’t mention any names.
Here's the impression I get. Obama just faced down a loud bully, the GOP base, in crafting a needed and moderate settlement on a deep domestic issue. Don't the odds of his facing down Netanyahu thereby get a little bit better? Linkage, dear reader, linkage.