It's not like Obama said anything really new.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/05/19/obama-israel-1967/

Actually Jen he did. He explicitly called for a return to the 67 borders. The fact that the 67 borders have otherwise served as reference for negotiations does not mean that they were the objective. I notice that there are a lot of people on the left trying to make the argument that you are, recognizing that Obama's position is hostile and unproductive. Try peddling it to stupider people.

Realistically Obama probably recognizes that Isreal is never going to return to 67. It would be a strategic and human rights catastrophe, and would likely provoke a war. He's simply pandering to the left and evading the issue.

This administration is throwing Israel under the bus.

When you look the map of the "Arab Spring" you see that Israel is in the center of a group of potentially extreme hostility. If Israel doesn't survive, that leaves the U.S. the only, nominally, free country on the planet.

Do you really want to live in that world?

Erm, ISRAEL is the only other free country on the planet?

Israel can exist or not exist, and I can have opinions on whether or not it should, but fact is its existance doesn't affect me personally as an American or as a Swiss. America is a bit confused in the way it kowtows to it. I chalk it up to leftover holocause guilt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_country_(politics)

Here you go Jim. You're welcome.

They can have whatever borders they want IMHO as long as they can pay for their defense themselves. The analogy to the US borders isn't really valid since we didn't have another state using its taxpayer dollars for our expansion.

Plus, I'm interested to know how you square (for lack of a better term) saving Israel with the enumerated powers you linked in another post today. Is the US supposed to be the worlds daddy? Do you want to live in that world?

Concerning the parody- if anyone cares, the Mexican American war was a big foul up by the US, that was won and capitalized upon. This is the nature of people, but also a blight on the grand experiment of a liberty intended government.

I think I basically agree with you Amy. Were Israel able to move, it would be interesting to see how people witnessing Islamic belligerance would then rationalize it. My guess is most would just ignore it, like they do today to the massive Islamic on Islamic violence through Africa. Such is life.

Yes on broke. I feel compelled to add that our funding other countries is not at all the dominant reason why we are broke, but we can't afford it all the same.

I'm actually not for the US funding all these other countries. If Israel cannot exist with all these tribal, warring Muslims around it (whose Quran, which is to be taken literally, commands the conversion or death of the Jews) Israel should move to Baja.

What's more likely is that they would deploy their nuclear arsenal, or their chemical and biological arsenals. That's actually one of the primary reasons that the US involves itself in the I/P issue, which I don't think anyone expects to ever be resolved peacefully. The conflict is both local and global. In some ways it's really a proxy war between the US and the EU. But as long as they're talking, the violence is kept to a manageable level.

You have to consider that the threat to Israel is a bit different from conventional political disputes in that the country's enemies wish to commit genocide against the jews in that country and are quite open about that fact. So the Israelis do face a legitimate existential threat. The US is basically buying a stalemate by financing the state of Israel.

Here's noted anti-Semite Abe Foxman on Obama's discussion of the 1967 borders:

“I don’t see this as the president throwing Israel under the bus,” he told me. “He’s saying with `swaps.’ It’s not 1967 borders in the abstract. It’s not an edict. It’s a recommendation of a structure for negotiations.”

"it isn't for us to be funding other countries"

Keep in mind that the US has forked over billions of $$$ to Palestinians, who used that money to fund suicide bombers, and danced in the streets on 9/11. And even more billions to Pakistanis, who used that money to fund suicide bombers and build bin Laden his own private fortress. If you're going to get fiscally responsible with your foreign affairs all of a sudden, why not cut off your enemies before your allies?

Israel can exist or not exist, and I can have opinions on whether or not it should, but fact is its existance doesn't affect me personally as an American or as a Swiss

And I'd argue that it does, Isreal absorbs a majority of the worlds arab violence, where do you think it will go once they are no longer there?

And the only reason the US supports Isrea is to keep them on a leash. If Isreal didnt have the US to rely on they would have to deal with the Palistinians once and for all. ANd then there goes our justification to get involved in the governments of the nations around Isreal

The Arabs have only had these arsenals in recent years. Let's not pretend that was the reason we intervened and have been intervening.

The Israelis have had nukes since the mid 70's. None of the Arab states have nukes. Iranians are Persians, at least among the ruling class. Pakis are Pakis. The Arabs can barely boil water in this regard.

The WMD issue was more prominent during the coldwar due to Soviet sponsorship of the Arab states, and US alliance w/ Israel. It predates the contemporary situation. The basic concern is the one that lujlp highlight - if the west doesn't intercede, the Arabs will throw themselves against Israel in overwhelming numbers, the Israelis will respond by turn the region to glass.

The existence of Israel is good for life and the ability to live it. Islam, not so much.

I will continue to support Israel no matter where it is located. I'd prefer them to move to Baja, but no matter where Israel is, the location will be better utilized then before Israel arrived.

I think the world would be a better place if Islamists converted to Judaism. Or, maybe not. Maybe "it" is in the blood.

1) If Israel is being called an illegitimate colonial imposition NOW - when it's in the ancient Jewish homeland - what would it be called if it were located in Baja? Or Uganda (which was proposed by the British)?

2) Israel receives zero financial aid from America. Hasn't done so for over 30 years.

America supplies coupons to Israel, that can only be used to buy American-made arms. So it's an indirect subsidy of American arms manufacturers.

In addition, Israel shares its in-the-field experience installs its own hacks/improved electronics systems - improving the quality of the American product and giving America battle-proven advanced Israeli technology.

3) America has a clear interest in promoting democracy and open markets around the world. Israel is a flagship of democracy in a very tough corner of the world. Which leads to:

4) The current "Arab spring" shows how unreliable dictators are as allies - billions of direct economic and military aid were poured into Egypt. American taxpayers can now kiss all that cash goodbye.

Israel can take care of itself -- economically and militarily -- in general.

My talk of support was telling the U.N., the Arab League, the Muslim brotherhood and the rest how to perform coitus with themselves and the equines they were astride.

Unfortunately this administration has the back bone of a nematode, and the same value to this country.

While I don't quite believe that Pax Americana should be the rule of the day, I also don't believe that an American should have to kiss the ass of a tin pot dictator.

Mexicans didn't own Texas in 1845. Texas was independent.

The logical extension of this argument is that we had no quarrel with the Germans in 1941.

"Never again" sounds way better than "not for the next sixty-five years" but times change. Promises can be so inconvenient.

I am not Jewish, nor am I a fan of foreign intervention. However, isolationism pretty much guarantees you're going to be fighting alone at the end.

You don't need to care what I think, I'm old enough to not have to worry about it.

Gog, Texas wasnt really independent(unless you mean independent of the USA) they were a territory of mexico which tried to break off to independence after a political power play and fueld by slave owners no wanting to emancipate their property as mexico planned to do.

Mexico never recognised their independnce, they bearly managed to negotiate a cease fire after a military force was finally dispatched to reign them in, never formally declared an end to hostilites, kidnapped mexicos lead negotiator, the mexican government never ratified the treaty, had plans to extend the country of Texas to include all 6 of the Rockies\south west desert states.

Incedentally if you really want to piss off a Texan just remind them that they are the only people in the history of the world to lose to mexico

*chuckle*
I tweeted this 3 days ago :P
Do you think Obama thinks the US should return to Pre-Texas Revolution Borders? Remember the Alamo! #gutsymove

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_country_(politics)

Here you go Jim. You're welcome.

Oh, awesome. And how many of those so-called "free countries" will you get pulled into court if you speak the truth about Islam and charged with either a civil or criminal breach of some law?

For instance, something like "In Islam women are treated as property and their testimony is worthy only half a man's testimony, and Jews, gays, and apostates are to be executed at the earliest opportunity."

Canada and much of Europe will and has failed miserably in that test. If I am not free to speak the truth as I see it, I'm not particularly free.

On the other hand, if we go back to 1845 boundaries, then the Republic of Texas comes back into being.

Failing to see the importance of Israel as a free Jewish state is understandable; especially if you don't know history.

What do you think will happen if Jerusalem was turned back over to Muslim control? Or even just divided again?

english.aljazeera.net/news/2010/03/20103257110514804.html

Do you think it would be like Mecca (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca) a simple no go zone for non-Muslims? Or do you think the Muslims would respect the other faiths holy sites. We all know that the Taliban respected the Buddhist faith in Afghanistan.

"Israel receives zero financial aid from America. Hasn't done so for over 30 years."

Oh, really?

You should stick to bashing gays.

"Tens of thousands of ordinary Mexicans were driven out of their homes - the only homes they had known for centuries - and forced to live in poverty and squalor south of the border imposed by American aggression,"

He's lying agin, surprise, surpise. The US didn't drive the Mexicans out, the Comanche just about finished that job on their own. In fact that was why the MEXICANS invited the Anglos in in the first place. That's hardly "American aggression."

Thridly, the Mexican population never was in the tens of thousands, again because of the Comanches. So that's three lies right there in one sentence.

And the next probelm with his half-witted rant is that the Mexicans were there as colonists, either on par with the Israeli narrative of the Palestinian presence, or else on par with many people's narrative of the Israeli presence. Either way he is arguing agianst his position.

This sounds lot like Putin's blast about Hiroshima the last time we said something about human rights in Russia. And that's not surprising either.

While I agree with you that Mexicans werent forced out by the federal govenment(that many were forced out by local governments and individuals in violation of laws is another argument entirely) taking the SW territory after the war, your argument that mexicans were a colonial population is a little odd.

If mexicans didnt originate in mexico then where did they come from?

Sorry, just reaised that that wasnt your argument, I'm half asleep

"Is the US supposed to be the worlds daddy? Do you want to live in that world?" - I would definitely want to live only in that world. Someone or the other is going to be the daddy of the world. I would rather have the US as the daddy of the world rather than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia or Brazil or any other country in that dominant position.

The world is a lot more civilized and reasonable today due to US being the daddy and if someone else were the daddy, then all the positions of power in all countries of the world would be held only by people belonging to that daddy thereby putting the whole concept of national sovereignity down the drain.

And the way US allows people of all races and nationalities to progress ahead in USA based purely on merit and hard work is something which no other nation in the world has ever been broadminded enough to do. If at all any nation deserves to be the daddy of the world, it is the USA and it definitely makes the best daddy of all.