RECENT POSTS
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama Camp Denies Backtracking on "Undivided" Jerusalem
June 05, 2008 9:13 PM
On Wednesday morning, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, told the pro-Israel lobby the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that he would be a strong ally of the Jewish state. As such, he repeated one of the talking points AIPAC likes to hear, that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."
As we covered last night, that proclamation resulted in harsh words from Hamas, as well as more moderate Palestinian voices such as Mahmoud Abbas and Saeb Erakat who specifically took issue with the "undivided" Jerusalem comments.
"We reject these words," Abbas said. "Jerusalem is one of the files under negotiation. The entire world knows perfectly well that we will never accept a state without Jerusalem. That should be clear."
In an interview today with CNN's Candy Crowley, Obama said of Jerusalem, "obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations."
Of his feelings about dividing Jerusalem, Obama said: "As a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute. And I think that it is smart for us to -- to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city."
Some in the media portrayed this as something of a flip-flop. "Facing Criticism, Obama Modifies Jerusalem Stance," said Reuters. "Obama amended his support for Israel's stance on Jerusalem on Thursday…"
With the headline "Obama Backtracks on Jerusalem," Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post wrote: "Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged today that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that Jerusalem 'must remain undivided.'"
Asked for comment, the Obama campaign put a reporter in immediate contact with Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla. -- an Orthodox Jew, a strong supporter of Israel and Obama's point man on many of these issues -- who told ABC News, "that is not backtracking."
"His position has been the same for the past 16 months," Wexler said. "He believes Jerusalem should be an undivided city and must be the capital of a Jewish state of Israel. He has also said -- and it's the same position as President Bush, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Prime Minister Ehud Ohlmert -- that Jerusalem is of course a 'final status' issue," meaning it would be one of the key and final points of negotiation for a Palestinian state. "And Sen. Obama as president would not dictate final status issues. He will permit the Palestinians and Israel to negotiate, and he would respect any conclusion they reach."
Wexler concluded, "the articles are not picking up this position. They're not contradictions -- they're the same position."
The record seems to back Wexler's argument that Obama has said both that Jerusalem should be Israel's undivided capital, and that its status is ultimately up to Israel. Obama's adviser for the Middle East, former Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer, recently said that "It will be impossible to make progress on serious peace talks without putting the future of Jerusalem on the table."
And in these answers to questions from the American Jewish Committee, Obama wrote that the U.S. "cannot dictate the terms of a final status agreement. We should support the parties as they negotiate these difficult issues, but they will have to reach agreements that they can live with. In general terms, clearly Israel must emerge in a final status agreement with secure borders. Jerusalem will remain Israel's capital, and no one should want or expect it to be redivided."
- jpt
June 5, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (56)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Rabbi Samuel I.Popack is the Messiah.He will bring peace on earth and good will towards man
Posted by: Ashmedi | Jun 6, 2008 3:33:10 AM
Oh! Obama will make sure to "whup" palestinians to agree with him.
If you have not heard the "Whup them" story ..here it is:
" At a town hall meeting on health care at Virginia High School, a 95-year-old voter gave the expected nominee a maple walking stick he had carved himself with the intention of giving it to Obama. Obama thanked the man and then, admiring his new gift, said “If members of Congress don’t pass my health care plan, I’ll whup them, I’ll whup them. That’s right, don’t mess with me, I’ll have my stick.”
Whup them??? So this is the CHANGE he is talking about! got it!
Posted by: frieda | Jun 6, 2008 3:05:19 AM
Obama is not Messiah, he's a politician. Worse, he's a Chicago politician. Clinton must stay in, she is a better candidate on issues and merits. This race, with the terribly negative Obama campaign, she also proved to us what the most ardent Clinton supporters know: Clinton is a better person. Clinton beats Obama on character. All of the candidates does. Historic, first African American - who cares. USA has real problems. Obama is also historic as first candidate with looser-talk in the time of war, and first candidate without a church.
Posted by: Sylvia Johnsen | Jun 6, 2008 2:43:26 AM
The most outrageous naive statement, who the real Obama in Action, now Cheney looks like Ghandi
Posted by: outlaw_liberal | Jun 6, 2008 2:29:51 AM
Obama must be pro-American first. He should defend American interests, not Israeli interests. If he does not, he would be commiting treason. Arguably, George Bush has comitted treason by involving America in a war clearly against American interests.
Posted by: Rpoe | Jun 6, 2008 2:19:15 AM
I believe that the people who thought Obama would be anti-Israel are now grasping at straws to "prove" that Obama is anti-Israel. They should read his original AIPAC speech. Obama promises $30 Billion to Israel over the next 10 years, is anti-Hamas and promises to not let Iran get nukes. His promise of two state solution isn't anything different than what Bush administration has been promising. Obama can believe in Jerusalem should not be divided, and at the same time said that Israel and Palestinian representatives have final say. That does not mean he is Anti-Israel.
Posted by: Mark Treitel | Jun 6, 2008 2:05:02 AM
McCain is much more appealing to me than Obama -- 1st McCain, like Hillary, does not favor legalizing marijuana and ending the war on drugs, 2nd McCain, like Hillary, does not favor abolishing the death penalty, and 3rd McCain, like Hillary, supported the Born Alive Infant Protection Act which allows doctors to provide medical care to newborns who survive a late term abortion (Obama strongly advocated against this bill arguing that it was appropriate to put these infants in a box in a soiled linen closet until they died so they could be properly disposed of as medical wate because they were only fetuses not children). I switched my party affiliation and will be voting Republican on the issues. I will also be campaigning for John McCain so that other blue dog democrats know that it is common and acceptable to vote your conscience rather than vote a party line ticket.
Posted by: DisgustedFormerDemocrat | Jun 6, 2008 12:26:07 AM
I think obama and his advisers and spokespersons should all get together and fix the script to match, what they all at least in the same ball park on something that serious of an issue.
Posted by: Sharon | Jun 6, 2008 12:08:52 AM
Israel is not one of the fifty states, and has no voice in our country's election. Whether it wants to strong arm politicians or lackeys, it has no bearing on whom we will be voting for. They can keep their mouths shut. If Europe can do it, Israel can do it.
Posted by: kravitz | Jun 5, 2008 11:54:21 PM
Candace: What McCain should have answered was "We started by giving Obama $100 million."
Posted by: RL in Illinois | Jun 5, 2008 11:48:05 PM
I think people are getting more CLUELESS by the day. How on earth would the USA expected to have a stance on Jerusalem. It is upto the Israelites to decide what they want to do with it. The President of the US may only in regard show full support to Israel--whether they have a full claim of the holy place or sell it to the highest bidder. Short of that, it will only be an interference on other countries issues.
What if Israel agrees to share it with the Palestinians. Would the president of the US come out and say NO, it should remain UNDIVIDED? I can't comprehend how IDIOTS some people are to even ask such questions to Obama.
Barack Obama should not entertain the stupid questions coming from Clueless so called journalists.
Posted by: jack | Jun 5, 2008 11:43:39 PM
Country over party.
NO-bama '08
PUMA Democrats!
Posted by: dyer wayne | Jun 5, 2008 11:28:27 PM
Hey Democ! I'm one of the ordinary citizens that donated to Obama. I suspect you and the other "so-called" Hillary supporters are really republicans in disguise. Especially the ones that think McCain would let Hillary do what she wants if he's the president.
Posted by: Donna | Jun 5, 2008 10:56:58 PM
Elspeth, you are taking that out of context. She was asked by Keith Olbermann, IF Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons what would she do. What would Obama do If Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons?
Posted by: Toad | Jun 5, 2008 10:48:27 PM
Jerusalem should be a free state controlled by all interested stakeholders since it is the site of the three great religions.
Posted by: joseph marcucilli | Jun 5, 2008 10:43:02 PM
well Jerusalem will be "undivided" when time comes.
Posted by: Free SMS | Jun 5, 2008 10:40:23 PM
Kelly actually let them vote for Bob Barr?
His Independent candidacy is chewing at the Repub base. His deeds are so under the radar now that pollsters haven't even started to poll the effect of his candidacy.
When they finally do...
Posted by: Mischka | Jun 5, 2008 10:32:01 PM
Voting independent? For Libertarian Bob Barr?
Sheesh!!! Dems sure could do without your type.
Posted by: Kelly | Jun 5, 2008 10:28:20 PM
@Sylvia - I'll follow your example and be gracious too - I have changed my party affiliation to Independent. Say hello to President John McCain.
Rise, Hillary, Rise!'08
A Proud, Black, Hillary Supporter
(It ain't over until the lady in the pantsuit says so!)
Posted by: LeeLee07 | Jun 5, 2008 10:23:17 PM
TOAD THERE IS NO WAY HRC CAN BE GIVEN SECRETARY OF STATE.
She of the "OBLITERATE IRAN" fame? That is the sort of saber rattling that Obama does not want.
Whatever the case, I am glad she is ACTING IN THE INTEREST OF PARTY UNITY.
Posted by: Elspeth | Jun 5, 2008 10:22:30 PM
Post a comment
