quote Originally posted by rinselberg: The Obnoxious Foreign Policy Ideas in Romney’s Convention Speech Posted on August 31, 2012, 12:53 AM Daniel Larison I won't copy and paste any of it (except for one paragraph, further on)--it's brief--here's the link: *snip*

That is one huge difference between the 2 parties.

The Republican side is willing to call their own onto the carpet when they disagree with them.
The Democrat side, well, their 'elected' can never be wrong. And if you ever question that rule you are ostracized from the party.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: How is it a myth that Obama hurt Israel's cause and standing by saying the 1967 border should be the standard? Really. I'm open to hearing in what sense that is close to being an accurate portrayal.

Mitt Romney's acceptance speech at the RNC:

quote President Obama has thrown allies like Israel under the bus...

Really?

President Obama on May 19, 2011:

quote So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe 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. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

The first thing to remark is that Obama referred to "the 1967 lines with mutually agreed [land] swaps".

The second thing to remark is that Bush (43) already committed the U.S. to the same policy on May 26, 2005:

quote Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.

Obama said 1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps. Bush said 1949 Armistice lines with changes by agreement from both sides. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs refers to the pre-1967 borders between Israel and Palestine as the "1949-1967 Armistice Lines."

So Obama didn't change the policy that his immediate predecessor had already laid down.

I suppose it can be argued that the situation had changed significantly from the Bush statement in 2005 to the Obama statement in 2011, and that Obama should have found the freedom to break away from this already well-entrenched aspect of U.S. foreign policy, but I don't think that is the argument that Obama's current critics are trying to make on this point. I think that they are saying "Hey, we were all good on this until Obama came along!"

I doubt that you will see Romney (if he wins) make any substantial changes to the current U.S. position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Maybe Romney or his cohorts have talked about the U.S. recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, instead of Tel Aviv(?) I don't think that would actually happen, until there's a final agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I think it would be a blunder of very regrettable proportions if the U.S. were to do that, before the realization of a final agreement.

There's more about the history of this issue here:
http://mediamatters.org/res...announcing-is/179826

Here are some excerpts from a statement that the Obama White House released on July 27, 2012 under the title Fact Sheet: Advancing Israel's Security and Supporting Peace:

The President has strengthened Israel’s security in tangible and concrete ways.

On July 27, 2012 the President signed the “United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012”, which strengthens Israel’s qualitative military edge. The bill expressed bipartisan Congressional support for Administration initiatives that deepen U.S. defense and security cooperation with Israel, to include providing Israel with financial and technological assistance to produce defensive systems to counter the threat of rockets and missiles; access to U.S. manufactured defense equipment and excess defense articles; and increased opportunities to train with U.S. military forces.

Despite tough fiscal times, the President fought for and secured full funding for Israel in FY 2012, including $3 billion in Foreign Military Financing – the largest amount of funding for Israel in U.S. history.

The President secured an additional $205 million in FY 2011 to help produce an Israeli-developed short-range rocket defense system called Iron Dome, which has helped defend Israeli communities against rocket attacks by successfully striking rockets as they are fired at Israeli civilians.

In July 2012, President Obama provided an additional $70 million to Israel to ensure that Israel could maximize its production of the Iron Dome system for 2012. Over the next three years, the Administration intends to request additional funding for Iron Dome, based on an annual assessment of Israeli security requirements against an evolving threat.

Israeli forces now benefit from regular joint exercises and training opportunities, access to advanced U.S. military hardware, emergency stockpiles, and favorable terms for the acquisition of equipment.

Prime Minister Netanyahu told the AIPAC conference on May 23, 2012, that “Yesterday President Obama spoke about his ironclad commitment to Israel's security. He rightly said that our security cooperation is unprecedented… And he has backed those words with deeds.”

In a July 25, 2012, speech to the Israeli National Security College, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, “The security ties between us and the current administration are at the highest level they have ever been. The administration is consistently strengthening the depths of Israel’s security abilities. The decision to expand the Iron Dome system with U.S. financial backing is yet another expression of this deep connection and commitment.

The President has galvanized the international community to put more pressure on the Iranian regime than ever before.

The President has made clear that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Hamas, a terrorist group sworn to its destruction.

The President has forcefully opposed unbalanced and biased actions against Israel in the Security Council, the UN General Assembly, and across the UN system.

The President has called on all sides – Arabs, Palestinians, and Israelis alike – to do their part to help achieve Middle East peace.

In Cairo, the President said that Arab states must recognize that they too have responsibilities to move towards peace, including by fostering a culture of peace. He said clearly that “threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong,” and that denying the Holocaust is “baseless, ignorant, and hateful.”

In his May 19, 2011 speech, President Obama emphasized that a peace agreement must meet the needs of both sides, including by: ending the conflict and resolving all claims, achieving the goal of two states for two peoples with Israel as a Jewish state and homeland for the Jewish people, achieving secure and recognized borders for both sides, and devising robust security arrangements that will not leave Israel vulnerable.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-01-2012).]