re: #366 jvic

1. The key phrase, of course, is “in theory”.

2. In fact, you can include me out of that phrase: Israel’s neighbors have attacked the country with the intention of destroying her. In theory I have no problem with the perpetrators of attempted annihilation paying a permanent territorial price. In practice I support the decisions of the Israeli people and government wrt threats to their existence.

3. As far as the Obama/1967 incident goes, I suspect the specifics are highly classified.

I’m not too keen on the 67 borders myself. Israel’s streak of doing the judo instructor move where you turn your back and tell the students to come at you with a knife is too nerve-wracking. But there it is.

What do you mean about ‘the specifics being highly classified’? Obama said “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” That’s not classified. He said it in public, just as Bush said his piece about the 1949 armistice lines out loud. Wingnuts screamed that he was trying to destroy Israel, and others got a little too slap-happy insisting that ‘1967 borders with land swaps’ was totally different from ‘1967 borders’. This is what it’s all based on.