Awesome: POLITICO teams with administration to distort Obama's Israel position

Today we learn from Politico that there are still around 80 highly dupable liberal Jews (but I repeat myself) who will pay between $25,000 and $35,800 to hear President Obama lay down his muddled position on Israel. But when touching on Obama’s recent “1967” speech, reporters Matt Negrin & Abby Phillip -- no doubt, misled by someone -- typed this extraordinarily false statement:

Obama’s speech — in which he said Israel’s borders before the 1967 Six-Day War should be the starting point for negotiations with the Palestinians — sparked an angry reaction from Israel’s government and from many of the country’s supporters in the United States, even though the position has been longstanding U.S. policy.

No, it's not.

Jonathan Tobin of Commentary explained why Obama's stand on Israel is a radical shift in policy:

Establishing the 1967 lines as the near-sacred starting point for negotiations means that rather than Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and in parts of the territories being treated as a given, the Jewish state will have to fight for this land in the context of peace talks where its presence there has already been branded as illegitimate.

As did the Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens:

Yet assuming Mr. Obama knows what he's talking about, he knows that's untrue: No U.S. president has explicitly endorsed the '67 lines as the basis for negotiating a final border, which is why the University of Michigan's Juan Cole, not exactly a shill for the Israel lobby, called it "a major turning point."

Mr. Obama would also know that in 2009 Hillary Clinton had described this formula as "the Palestinian goal." Now it's Mr. Obama's goal as well, even as he insists that "no peace can be imposed."

Yes, we know that President George W. Bush once mentioned the 1949 Armistice lines. But let’s also remember that Hamas, a group that that doesn’t recognize Israel and targets its civilians, was not a part of the Palestinian ruling authority during previous negotiations. Obama may claim that he would never push Israel to negotiate with Hamas, but, as usual, facts on the ground undercut his contentions – unless he’s willing to somehow dictate who should represent the Palestinian people.

Longstanding U.S. policy? Hardly.