Long before he introduced Arizona’s controversial immigration law — SB-1070 — state Senate President Russell Pearce (R) has had to respond to allegations that he is a racist. These accusations have not only stemmed from his political crusade against undocumented immigrants; they are also a product of the company he has kept over the past several years. Last week, Fox 10 posted a lengthy 30-minute interview in which Pearce was forced to address his controversial ties — namely his relationship with J.T. Ready, one of “Arizona’s leading neo-Nazis.”

Pearce — who ordained Ready as an “elder” in the Mormon church and supported his unsuccessful City Council run — has always claimed that he had no knowledge of Ready’s controversial beliefs and affiliations. (Meanwhile, Bill Straus, regional director of the Arizona Anti-Defamation League, claims to have met with Pearce and informed him on J.T. Ready and other neo-Nazis flocking to his anti-immigrant cause). Yet, in this interview, Pearce admits to taking Ready under his wing and bringing him into his family:

FOX 10: He says to say that you were a friend would be an understatement. [...] He’s saying that you took him under your wing and he says that there’s no doubt about that.

PEARCE: I think that’s probably a fair statement initially. [...] I had great hopes for J.T. in terms of just being a good patriot. And it wasn’t until years later that he brought to light that he had associations. [...] As a young man, I put my arm around him. I cared about J.T. But I will not support those kinds of activities. [...]

I’m a natural kind of lover of guys. I’m a hugger, kind of touchy feely kind of guy. I care about people, but I will not put up with misbehavior and improper conduct. I don’t care who you are. I think he had a lot of potential. But when he associated himself with those sort of organizations — he can’t do that and be a part of our family.

In a separate interview with Fox 10, Ready went as far as to call Pearce “a surrogate father” who “enlightened him.” “I more or less evolved from there,” explained Ready. “I didn’t really heed his word on staying more covert.”

Ready also claims that he was with Pearce’s son, Josh Pearce, when he got a tattoo of an iron eagle with a swastika on his neck and chest. Ready told Fox 10 that he talked Josh Pearce out of joining a skinhead group. Josh Pearce was recently sentenced to a year in the Arizona Department of Corrections for violating the conditions of his probation on a 2007 conviction for aggravated DUI.

When asked if he believes Russell Pearce is a racist, former state legislator Bill Konopnicki (R) — who feels that he was bullied by Pearce for voting against one of his immigration bills in 2007 — stated, “My personal opinion is I hope not, but some of the things that he has said would lead one to that conclusion.”

Watch Fox 10′s report:

Yesterday President Obama spoke at AIPAC and reiterated what he said in last week’s Middle East speech: that Israeli and Palestinian peace will “involve two states” based on the the 1967 borders with land swaps.

The right has been trying to gin up Obama’s stance as some sort of affront to Israel, despite the fact that Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni backs Obama and so do Israelis themselves. But nonetheless, the American right is trying to turn it into a U.S. domestic political issue. And this morning on Fox News, John Bolton predictably joined in, saying that Obama is “flatly wrong” that the 1967 borders with land swaps has been long-standing U.S. policy:

HOST: [Obama] said that this is long standing U.S. policy. That he was simply coming out and clarifying it. But that this is really the way that the US, this is the line that we have towed for many, many years. Is he right?

BOLTON: He’s flatly wrong on that. If you go back to foundation of the UN Security Council Resolution 242 after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, that resolution calls for all states in the region to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. It doesn’t say anything about the 67 line or anything else. And I think that’s a key point here. That 67 line was a 1949 Armistice line. It simply reflects where the Israeli and Arab armies ended up the conflict. There’s another armistice line too, the 1973 Armistice line, which is israel’s greatest extent of control. If you’re going to start with any line, why not start with that line.

Watch it:

It’s been well documented throughout the past week that by publicly endorsing the 1967 borders with land swaps as the basis for negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians, the President was simply putting words to long standing U.S. policy. But Bolton’s claim that UNSCR 242, passed in November 1967, “doesn’t say anything about the 67 line” is false. From the resolution:

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Seeing that the resolution was passed in 1967, it’s therefore more than reasonable to conclude that “recent conflict” refers to the 1967 Six Day War in which the Israelis acquired large swaths of Arab lands.

The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg makes an important point about Netanyahu, his Likud allies and the American right using the Israel/Palestine issue as a wedge issue in U.S. domestic politics:

For decades, Israel has been a bipartisan cause on Capitol Hill. It will remain so for a while, but Netanyahu is, through his pedantic and pinched behavior, helping to weaken Israel’s standing among Democrats. Why is this so important? Because Israel has no friends left in the world except for the United States (and in fairer weather, Canada, Australia and Germany). As it moves toward a confrontation with Iran, it needs wall-to-wall support in America. You would think that Netanyahu, who is sincere in his oft-stated belief that Iran poses quite possibly the greatest danger Israel has ever faced, would be working harder than he is to ensure Democratic, and presidential, support, for this cause.

So Bolton isn’t doing Netanyahu, or Israel, any favors. Particularly by endorsing two-state negotiations to start at 1973 lines. The only thing that will guarantee is a failure of a two-state solution.

Last week, in a speech on the Middle East, President Obama reiterated long-standing US policy that there should be a final settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is based roughly on the pre-1967 borders and mutually agreed land swaps.

Despite the fact that Obama’s declaration was nothing new, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blasted the idea of pre-1967 borders, even using a news conference with Obama to call the proposal “indefensible.” His chief political rival, Kadima’s Tzipi Livni, disagreed, noting that the pre-1967 borders is already American policy.

Now, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is announcing that he plans to introduce a resolution condemning Obama’s advocacy for pre-1967 borders. Hatch sensationally claiming that Obama is “rewarding those who threaten Israel’s very right to exist“:

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) issued a press release today stating his intention to introduce a resolution next week disapproving of the policy concerning Israel that President Barack Obama announced on Thursday. “Israel is the United States’ strongest friend and ally,” Hatch said in the statement. “By calling for a return to the pre-1967 borders, President Obama has directly undermined her.”

Instead, Hatch said, “President Obama is rewarding those who threaten Israel’s very right to exist.” “This is not only ridiculous, but dangerous,” he said.

Yet what Hatch, Netanyahu, and their allies in the U.S. Congress are not saying is that most Israelis and Palestinians actually support a settlement based around 1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps that result in a safe, secure, free, and prosperous independent Palestinian and Israeli states. Here is a roundup of some of the recent polling on the issue:

- PALESTINIANS SUPPORT PEACE: It a common refrain among those who would deny rights to the Palestinians that they are militantly opposed to Israel’s very existence and would never support a peaceful resolution. Yet the facts do not support this assertion. Polling conducted in 2009 indicated that 74 percent of Palestinians support a two-state solution based around the contours of the international consensus. Polling conducted in 2010 found that 71 percent support peace negotiations with Israel and that a majority of Palestinians oppose rocket attacks on the country. Last month, the top Palestinian diplomat at the UN asked that the international community support a solution based on the pre-1967 borders and mutually agreed land swaps.

- ISRAELIS SUPPORT PEACE: While the pre-1967 borders were portrayed as primarily a Palestinian demand by the mainstream media and conservatives, the truth is that most Israelis are actually in favor of withdrawing settlements and establishing roughly these borders in exchange for peace. In a 2010 Brookings Institution poll, a plurality of Israelis supported this border arrangement along with mutually agreed land swaps. More recent polling from the Joint Israeli Palestinian Poll conducted by the Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace at Hebrew University and the Palestine Center for Policy and Survey Research found that 52 percent of Israelis support a peace agreement based roughly around the elements of the Saudi peace plan and Clinton Parameters, which would incorporate the pre-1967 borders, and that most Israelis support negotiating with Hamas. A 2011 poll conducted by a major Israeli newspaper shows that 53 percent of Israelis want Netanyahu to seriously engage in peace talks that includes significant concessions.

While it is true that mort Palestinians support this agreement than Israelis — the status quo is much worse for them — it is also true that narrow majorities of Israelis support the general contours of a peace proposal that Obama and the wider international community are endorsing. Netanyahu, Hatch, and their allies in the U.S. Congress and Israeli Knesset are staking out positions that are out of step with public opinion and reality. The question is whether Obama is will use the levers at his disposal to force them to the negotiating table.