One begins to suspect that we have really have entered a postmodern era on the right. So Fox News "reports" that Obama's speech calling for a return to 1967 borders, with agreed-upon land swaps
stunned Washington and Jerusalem by endorsing Palestinians' demand for their own state based on the pre-1967 borders. The break with longstanding U.S. policy appeared to immediately aggravate the Israelis, who want the borders of any future Palestinian state determined through negotiations.
Stunned? Here's secretary of state Clinton in 2009:
We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.
Ethan Bronner even props up this bizarre notion. His argument is that somehow this differs from Bush's policy. If it is, the difference is so slight it is invisible to me. Bronner's evidence is that there is a distinction between affirming that a peace settlement should not be based on "a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949" and one saying exactly the same thing with the formula of 1967 borders along with "mutually agreed upon land-swaps." Let's just say that Bronner is now far to the right of Jeffrey Goldberg and Walter Russell Mead.
Romney follows the Ailes line:
President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus. He has disrespected Israel and undermined its ability to negotiate peace.
Pro-settler Huckabee:
President Obama has betrayed Israel and made a grievous mistake by suggesting borders of Israel go back to pre-1967 borders. This is an outrage to peace, sovereignty of Israel, and a stable Middle East.
I guess this is a monent to realize that the American right and the West Bank settler movement are now indistinguishable. The alleged surprise at Obama's recitation of the bleeding obvious, if not entirely cynical, can only come from an assumption that Israel gets to keep the West Bank in perpetuity. If that is now the GOP's position, it is a radical departure from the last president and American policy for decades.
The Dish 