Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
OBAMA BACKS AWAY FROM UNDIVIDED JERUSALEM PLEDGE AT AIPAC.
After pledging at the AIPAC conference this week that Jerusalem would remain the undivided capital of Israel, a poorly executed bit of catering to the crowd, Barack Obama was forced to back up, kinda, sorta restoring his position to well, I think the parties to negotiations should decide this question (which is, officially at least, Bush Administration policy). But Obama added that "'as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute' a division of the city. '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.'"
At his blog at the Christian Broadcasting Network, David Brody calls Obama's wavering "Obama's Looming Jerusalem Problem," which Brody forecasts will be a problem for Obama with Jewish and evangelical voters:
First of all, he needs the Jewish vote. They are skeptical of him for a number of reasons including what some believe are strong ties to the Palestinian community. Secondly, if he’s looking to make an impact with Christians across the country, he needs to be strong on Israel because of Evangelicals strong support for the country. The Obama campaign SHOULD NOT underestimate how Israel and the Christian community are linked. In addition, the issue of national security is at play here too along with the judgment and experience factors it takes to be President. This is a major tight rope for Obama and you can bet the McCain campaign will be quick to bring it up.
But Obama shouldn't overestimate how many evangelicals or Jews reflexively respond to the undivided Jerusalem rhetoric either. Secret Muslim rumors or not, he can't look like he's pandering to the most conservative elements of the Jewish or evangelical vote, or, given the right's fixation on his lack of foreign policy experience, that he doesn't really understand the issue at stake.
--Sarah Posner
COMMENTS (4)
There may have been confusion by Obama on Jerusalem. There certainly was none on the right of return.
Obama took only 14 words at the AIPAC convention to effectively put paid to the idea that a third Palestinian State - in addition to Israel and Jordan - will be created during his term as President if he wins the forthcoming election in November when declaring:
“… any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state“,
Mr Obama had previously made this viewpoint very clear when answering a question put to him at a meeting of 100 members of the Cleveland Jewish Community on 24 February 2008:
“Israel has to remain a Jewish state and what I believe that means is that any negotiated peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians is going to have to involve the Palestinians relinquishing the right of return as it has been understood in the past. And that doesn't mean that there may not be conversations about compensation issues “
Mr Obama - like President Bush - has now given his unequivocal support to Israel’s rejection of the 40 years old demand by the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) - endorsed by the 22 member States of the Arab League - that millions of former Arab residents or their descendants be allowed to emigrate to Israel.
This issue has been one of the major stumbling blocks to President Bush’s Roadmap failing to even make it to first base despite the backing of the European Union, Russia and the United Nations.
No doubt conferences, negotiations, press releases and Presidential statements will continue to flow until a new American President is in control and will continue throughout the next Presidential term of office but nothing tangible can possibly emerge until the Arabs drop their demand for the right of return.
Posted by: david singer | June 6, 2008 10:42 PM
Jesus H. Christ!--so to speak.
The "Jewish vote" is L*I*B*E*R*A*L, as Hyman Kaplan might write it. If Obama is rational-left on Israel, he will get at least 2/3 of the Jewish vote. If he takes points right, he will take up to 75-80%. And Jews are only about 3% of the voting population.
AIPAC is not a majority Jewish position, even on Israel. Whatever reason Obama might have for kowtowing to those alter kockers, it isn't the Jewish vote.
Posted by: Joe S. | June 7, 2008 8:06 AM
We see one thing for sure; Obama is a politician, not a statesman. He is starting to flip flop like a bass on the pier after being caught. Claims integrity but shows none. Claims substance, but shows there is nothing there, there. Can be sure that his lack of depth and ability will come to the front in the coming months, starting with why did he stay with a racist church for 20 years(could it be that it reflects his own values and beliefs?).
Posted by: Billyhr2 | June 7, 2008 8:56 AM
"Given the right's fixation on his lack of foreign policy experience, that he {can't look like he] doesn't really understand the issue at stake."
One might think that if Obama really DID understand the issues here that he would not have committed this "poorly executed bit of catering."
Posted by: sbj | June 9, 2008 1:50 PM