Obviously, the Obama 2012 campaign was ready with phony posts like the first two below allegedly coming from Pro-Israel posters. If ''Rightwing Jew'' is Pro-Israel, then so are the Israel-bashers of J Street, James Baker and Noam Chomskly, et al.
Obama's position undercuts Israel's position on borders and emboldens hard-line Palestinians who want to return to the 1967 lines, which Israel super-dove Abba Eban correctly called ''the Auschwitz lines.''
Unfortunately, most leftist Democrats would put Israel's very existence in peril before they would publicly disagree with any leftist Democratic President, much less a black one. Troy is, unfortunately, incorrect. Obama will get a warm welcome from most of the AIPAC audience, the majority of whom are leftist Democrats.
In fact, Obama would get a friendlier reception than Netanyahu before almost any so-called Jewish organization. For a truly warm reception the Israeli PM must address conservative Christian groups.
I join the brilliant Norman Podhoretz in deploring the knee-jerk support so many of our co-religionists provide to Democrats, even if they are enemies of Israel.

@Rightwing Jew

You're wrong. Obama's position on 1967 (really 1949) borders is a change. In 2004 President Bush clearly stated that a compromise based on 1967 borders was unrealistic due to realities on the ground. Yet Obama has just made that the basis for negogtiations, cutting the Israelis off at the knees.

I can just hear the jackals in the U.N. now; If the Preident of the United States,Israel's "staunchest" ally, has stated that 1967 borders are an appropriate starting point, why are the Israelis being so obstinate in refusing them?

Why does it matter what a President (any President) says or does about the Israeli-Palestinian dispute?

For some reason, many are comparing President Obama's words and actions unfavorably with President George W. Bush's words and actions.

And Mr. Bush, in 8 years, accomplished - what, exactly? You want to take a look at the Israeli-Palestinian dispute in January 2001 and explain how it was materially different from the dispute in January 2009 other than that, like an afternoon soap opera with real bombs, bullets and blood, some of the characters had died and others had arrived on the scene? Was a "resolution" - by negotiation or victory - one whit closer?

Both sides have chosen to have their nose in the U.S. taxpayer trough so both sides have to listen to our lectures. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Israelis are indisputably "right" and the Palestinians indisputably "wrong."

Well, ok. Now what?

Would the dispute look different today if Mr. Bush was in his third term? If Senator McCain was in his first? Will it look different in 2015 if Mr. Obama is in the third year of his second term than if President Pawlenty / Romney / Daniels / Christie [insert Dream Republican President here] is in the third year of his first term?

Really?

@H. Felton & VenerableBede: What on earth are you talking about? Seriously? I'm still scratching my head about what, if anything, was new in this speech other than the denunciation of a unilateral creation of a Palestinian state. Hillary Clinton in 2009 said literally the same words that came out of Obama's mouth a few hours ago. The released documents from the Olmert/Abbas/Bush negotiations show the exact same outline of a deal that Obama said in his speech. You're left with ramming through a distinction between (i) not having a settlement be based on the 1949 Armistice lines (Bush) and (ii) having a settlement along the 1967 lines with land swaps (Obama). If that's what you have, the difference is utterly lost on me. Bush repeatedly told Israel to stop expanding settlements because it undermined the prospects of a negotiated settlement.

Obama's misstep was always insisting on talking about borders before a deal and pressuring Israel to make concessions. But the reason it was a misstep was because the borders issue was always largely resolved. Obama has completely retreated from the position from 2009 and is basically reiterating longstanding US policy. Meanwhile, the ADL and half of Commentary magazine agree with me; I guess I'll let J-Street know they have some new recruits.

Americans,and to a lesser extent Israelis, need to stop treating renouncing terror as a concession from the Palestinians. For most societies it is a prerequisite to merely being considered worth talking to as human beings. If Palestinian society is not willing to condemn beheading a three month old and shooting an anti-tank at a school bus, then they are savages who should be treated as such.

I know that traditionally Jews have supported Democratic Presidents. I did not support Obama last time nor will I in the next election. He is clearly partician on this issue and anti-Israel. He tries to sound like he respects the Jews, but his policies do not. Fool me once, shame on you...Fool me twice, shame on me. We need to reconsider who we vote for. Just because there is a "D" behind his name, may stand for destruction and not democrate. This time, I will send my donations and vote for the Republicans. We have seen this backhanded hatred before.

Being anti-Israel is one of the litmus tests of the far left. Obama, who really doesn't care for foreign policy because it distracts from his domestic agenda, feels compelled to say something about it occasionally.

The only real debate in the wake of his remarks is how far he actually threw Israel under the bus. On the positive side, he's unlikely to do anything more serious than expressing his default position. Not when he can just defer it.

any man who could sit in Rev. Wrights church for 20 years is no friend of Jews ...

Back to 1967 borders, okay if he means post-war 1967 borders!