>There is a difference between supporting Israel in their right to exist and supporting them in illegal settlements and expansion beyond the UN agreement. We support Canada and would defend them but we wouldn't support them expanding into Alaska or Montana even if the locals would be much happier.
>
>I couldn't disagree more.
>
>I've got a series of questions for you - such as how much you think the settlements actually constitute as a % of total land in the West Bank....
>
>Or if you're aware that most U.S. administrations have not questioned the legality of settlements (aside from the smoke that Jimmy Carter tried to blow, which was discredited shortly after he lost the 1980 election). Some administrations have questioned the politics, but rarely the legality. As for Obama, we all know his agenda to tie one hand behind Israel's back because of his own personal biases.
>
>Of if you're aware that some settlements are very close to the Israeli air force early warning stations? Bottom line, many of these settlements are areas where it would be suicide to withdraw - something the Obama administration doesn't care about. This is the colossal fraud of the Obama administration...Obama was all over Bush in 2007 and 2008 about an aggressive exit strategy regarding Iraq....and wants Israel to "back down" - but he also disagreed with Israel on setting "time-tables" with Iran. How much more can Obama possibly sympathize with our enemies?????
>
>These settlements are not in "occupied territory" - the West Bank and Gaza are "disputed" - 242 never called for complete Israeli withdrawal from the land Israel captured in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.
>
>
>Your closing analogy on Canada - either you're practicing your material for Night at the Improv, or you and Mike Beane have joined forces. Either way, we didn't have a war with Canada that resulting in them winning in 6 days and claiming Alaska, and I'm pretty sure neither the U.S. nor Canada has talked about wiping either country off the map (ok, maybe it was mentioned on "South Park" a time or two) <s>
>
>(Though, on the other hand, you may be onto something.....if Canada gets Alaska, that means Sarah Palin is their problem, not ours).

None of your statements or questions have anything to do with the UN Resolution. It's no different than if we had started settlements in Iraq or Afghanistan and then later tried to use those as justification for adding them to the U.S. or suddenly decided Kabal was a territory of the U.S

.