Matt Duss responds to the big lie about the 1967 borders:
Treating the 1967 lines as a basis for negotiations in this way represents the overwhelming consensus of the international community, enshrined in multiple UN resolutions. That anyone should be confused or surprised about this probably goes to the success that Israeli leaders have had over the years in obscuring it, and the indulgence that American leaders have often shown toward those efforts.
Massie's two cents:
I dare say Romney and Tim "Nice but Dim" Pawlenty think they must behave stupidly so they may meet domestic, conservative expectations and their views might change were they to find themselves living on Pennsylvania Avenue. Nevertheless, there are times when politics is canny and times when playing to the gallery leaves you looking like a dolt. This is one such time.
Chait believes Obama's speech did break new ground but that the ensuing freakout was unwarranted:
During the first quarter-century of Israel's existence, the prospect of a massed conventional military invasion constituted the greatest threat to its existence. That's no longer true. The greatest dangers today are the combination of demographic and political threats posed by the growing relative size of the Arab population west of the Jordan river, terrorism, and the loss of legitimacy posed by a continuing occupation and counter-terrorism policy in the West Bank and Gaza. Those dangers all dwarf the potential that armored columns of Arab armies will cut Israel in half. The tragedy is that huge swaths of the Israeli right and its sympathizers (both Jewish and Gentile) have failed to grasp this, and have placed it in danger of succumbing to the mortal new threat while guarding against the antiquated one.
(Image of the front page of Michele Bachmann's website)
The Dish 