Obama Camp Denies Backtracking on “Undivided” Jerusalem
EmailOn 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
Rick Santorum Encircled in Prayer 
Boehner Slams Obama on Contraception Controversy
Obama is part of the PAY TO PLAY politics that destroys the fair political process. If you believe it was ordinary citizens donating all that money to OBama your really a big fool.
Posted by: Democ | June 5, 2008, 9:26 pm 9:26 pm
“”"”"News Flash…Barack at Hillary’s home in NY right now. This should be interesting.”"”"
Posted by: LL Barra | June 5, 2008, 9:28 pm 9:28 pm
Make that DC no NY.
Posted by: LL Barra | June 5, 2008, 9:32 pm 9:32 pm
Hillary’s supporters should unite NOW and and PROMISE to vote for McCain.
Remember, if McCain is the President, Hillary will be in a powerful cabinet position. She will implemrent what she stands for. McCain will support her.
We will never miss her leadership then.
PLEASE, Hillary Democrats, VOTE FOR MCCAIN, if you want Hillary in power.
Posted by: Tkan | June 5, 2008, 9:40 pm 9:40 pm
What difference does it make? He’s not going for the Palestinian vote. This is a classic move, go left to get the nomination, go just barely to the right of center to win the election. Now it’s time to watch Obama the Hawk in action.
========================================
Obama, the architect of BitterGate!
========================================
Posted by: WestCoastMessenger | June 5, 2008, 9:56 pm 9:56 pm
IF IF he had changed his position you might be correct. However, the position has not changed.
IT is the same position!
Posted by: Annoyed | June 5, 2008, 10:01 pm 10:01 pm
OBAMA IS RIGHT.
The U.S. must not dictate the final terms of the peace settlement.
On a different topic – yes, we need to make a concerted and organized effort to withdraw from Iraq.
Posted by: Bertha | June 5, 2008, 10:04 pm 10:04 pm
guess who’ coming to dinner?
obama is at sen.clintons house in dc right now
Posted by: justsaying | June 5, 2008, 10:06 pm 10:06 pm
she’s it! vp clinton
Posted by: ohno | June 5, 2008, 10:11 pm 10:11 pm
TO ALL THOSE WOMEN VOWING TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN TO SPITE OBAMA (see below):
From International Herald Tribune’s Joan Vennochi:
Or, is “sweetie” automatically preferable to John McCain’s response to a female supporter who asked the Arizona senator back in November, “How do we beat the bitch?” As the room erupted in laughter, McCain replied: “That’s an excellent question.”
NOW DOES MCCAIN STILL LOOK MORE APPETIZING LADIES?
Posted by: Candace | June 5, 2008, 10:11 pm 10:11 pm
IM NOT SURE OBAMA KNOWS WHAT JERUSALEM IS ALL ABOUT..
THE GOOD NEWS FOR ALL HILLARY SUPPORTERS IS
HILLARY SAYS SHE DONT WANT OBAMA VP
HOURAAAAAH!!!!
I THINK SHE SHOULD GET ON THE PODIUM WITH HIM ON SATURDAY AND SAY HOW SHE BELIVES HE CAN WIN AND THEN GO HOME AND GET A WELL-DESERVED REST.
LEAVE OBAMA AND THE DNC TO THEIR FATE!!
TAKE NO MORE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DEMO PARTY
GET SOME REST, HILLARY
LET OBAMA FIGHT HIS DEMONS A.L.O.N.E
NO VP!!!!!!!
GREAT!!WHO EVEN CAME UP WITH SUCH A STUPID IDEA.
HILLARY IS FAR BETTER THAN A VP TO OBAMA..
TJ, THE CLINTONITE, HAPPY HILLARY ISNT GONAA BE A STOOGE TO TED KENNEDY.. AND DIRTY OLD MEN OF DNC.
Posted by: TJ | June 5, 2008, 10:11 pm 10:11 pm
Oh no! No need for a cardiac arrest.
This sort of meeting was inevitable and Obama refused repeatedly in interviews given yesterday to announce HRC as his Veep – graciously of course.
He is going for a LONG HAUL APPROACH – deliberate search and vetting process by his committee.
Posted by: Linda | June 5, 2008, 10:14 pm 10:14 pm
TO ALL THOSE WOMEN VOWING TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN TO SPITE OBAMA (see below):
From International Herald Tribune’s Joan Vennochi:
Or, is “sweetie” automatically preferable to John McCain’s response to a female supporter who asked the Arizona senator back in November, “How do we beat the bitch?” As the room erupted in laughter, McCain replied: “That’s an excellent question.”
NOW DOES MCCAIN STILL LOOK MORE APPETIZING LADIES?
Posted by: Candace | June 5, 2008, 10:15 pm 10:15 pm
Jake where are you on this meeting? I hope he offers her Secretary of State, she deserves a very prestigious position.
Posted by: Toad | June 5, 2008, 10:17 pm 10:17 pm
me & my conservative friends know of the planned effort by the disgruntled Hillary supporters. Most are Republicans posing
Posted by: myconservative friends | June 5, 2008, 10:19 pm 10:19 pm
Leelee07: instead of saying something mean I’ll follow Obama’s example and be GRACIOUS.
THE LADY IN THE PANT SUIT IS SAYING ITS OVER THIS WEEKEND AND ENDORSING OBAMA.
Welcome back to the Dem. Party fold Leelee.
Posted by: Sylvia | June 5, 2008, 10:20 pm 10:20 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 | June 5, 2008, 10:22 pm 10:22 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 | June 5, 2008, 10:23 pm 10:23 pm
Voting independent? For Libertarian Bob Barr?
Sheesh!!! Dems sure could do without your type.
Posted by: Kelly | June 5, 2008, 10:28 pm 10:28 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 | June 5, 2008, 10:32 pm 10:32 pm
well Jerusalem will be “undivided” when time comes.
Posted by: Free SMS | June 5, 2008, 10:40 pm 10:40 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 | June 5, 2008, 10:43 pm 10:43 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 | June 5, 2008, 10:48 pm 10:48 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 | June 5, 2008, 10:56 pm 10:56 pm
Country over party.
NO-bama ’08
PUMA Democrats!
Posted by: dyer wayne | June 5, 2008, 11:28 pm 11:28 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 | June 5, 2008, 11:43 pm 11:43 pm
Candace: What McCain should have answered was “We started by giving Obama $100 million.”
Posted by: RL in Illinois | June 5, 2008, 11:48 pm 11:48 pm
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 | June 5, 2008, 11:54 pm 11:54 pm
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 | June 6, 2008, 12:08 am 12:08 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 | June 6, 2008, 12:26 am 12:26 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 | June 6, 2008, 2:05 am 2:05 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 | June 6, 2008, 2:19 am 2:19 am
The most outrageous naive statement, who the real Obama in Action, now Cheney looks like Ghandi
Posted by: outlaw_liberal | June 6, 2008, 2:29 am 2:29 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 | June 6, 2008, 2:43 am 2:43 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 | June 6, 2008, 3:05 am 3:05 am
Rabbi Samuel I.Popack is the Messiah.He will bring peace on earth and good will towards man
Posted by: Ashmedi | June 6, 2008, 3:33 am 3:33 am
Why does the USofA have such a strong interest in Israel while ignoring other Countries .. i Mean i don’t get It but it seems as if The candidates are running for President of USA + Israel …. Is Israel the 51st State in America ? .. Why not Consider the Interests of other Nations in the World Instead of Playing (..what others may see as ) Favoritism to a Particular Country..
Posted by: missy | June 6, 2008, 3:33 am 3:33 am
What would Obama do If Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons?
**************************************
Why of course he would sit down with Ahmadinajad, like any good little Empty Suit” would do and tea a cookies with the madman while they discuss the situation.
Posted by: JjV | June 6, 2008, 5:45 am 5:45 am
For now ,college age voters are motivated by Obamas’ commitment to rereat in Iraq. However,under Obama, U.S. military power would ultimately be neccesary in Pakistan,Sudan,Rwanda, Kenya,Sierra Leone & Zimbabwe to prevent genocide, due in part, by tribalism spanning centuries.What a surprise his young flock will have when they receive DRAFT notices from their New Age Leader!
Posted by: JP in Texas | June 6, 2008, 6:59 am 6:59 am
Obama: “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”
Obama (the next day): “Why are you distracting me with these snippets? How does this help my children?”
Posted by: mesquito | June 6, 2008, 7:24 am 7:24 am
IF mccain wins, hillary will lose her senate seat….guaranteed!
Posted by: LA in Indiana | June 6, 2008, 8:12 am 8:12 am
la in INDIANA,
how do you figure sen clinton will lose her senate seat?
Posted by: jgaw | June 6, 2008, 8:20 am 8:20 am
If his adviser to the middle east says no progress wll be made unless jerusalem is on the table then Obama is the one who is disconnecting with reality when he says that Jerusalem is not to be divided, while still making noise and expending resources towards solution. Either his advisor is wrong or Obama is wrong. Which one is it? Obama, do you believe in and agree with your advisor? Or not?
Posted by: andrea | June 6, 2008, 8:42 am 8:42 am
Mesquito: You do realize that Obama is on record as stating that “the prevention of genocide is not sufficient justification” for deployment of US forces, right? May, 2007. Do a web search on Obama and Genocide. Now, of course, that means that if preventing genocide is not enough to trigger US intervention, obviously, *nothing* is. Obama is 100% isolationist and he’s made it very clear. No draft will be needed if he is not going to use the military for anything…
Posted by: fjtorres | June 6, 2008, 8:56 am 8:56 am
Obama should smile, read his teleprompter, and not open his mouth otherwise. He has a good chance of blowing a guanteed election for the Democrates.
Posted by: The Malibu Kid | June 6, 2008, 9:10 am 9:10 am
fjtorres: Obama says lots of things. he makes it up as he goes. One day the threat from Iran is “tiny.” The next day it is “grave.” (I happen to think it’s somewhat in-between-y, but I am not informed by Divine Revelation.)
Posted by: mesquito | June 6, 2008, 9:10 am 9:10 am
Barack Obama: The candidate for every position …. stick around. You’ll hear the one you want … and then the next day, you’ll hear the opposite. He makes John Kerry sound Bushlike, doesn’t he?
Posted by: beebop | June 6, 2008, 9:43 am 9:43 am
As a Obama supporter, I think I can honestly say the undivided Jersulem issue is a backtrack in positions.
He made it seem like the Middle East was open for negotiations. He also made it seem like he understood what was at the heart of the matter. One issue is Israel. If he is going to hold firm with the current obvious politics, then I don’t see how he is going to get any movement there.
If he comes into the negotiation with one firm position like undivided Jerusalem as a precondition, how does he expect anyone to be willing to talk to him? No one wants to talk just to talk, they want a settlement of some kind.
Posted by: Genna | June 6, 2008, 9:49 am 9:49 am
I think that Mr. Wexler’s comment should end this rather ridiculous criticism of a non-controversy in Senator Obama’s position. If the media paid attention to substance, rather than to the dumbed down summary of a complex matter, we would all be better off.
As for a commentator above who mentioned Senator Obama’s position that genocide is not “in and of itself” a rationale for a U.S. military intervention — this too does not seem to be much of an issue — unless the commenter really thinks that U.S. military forces should be used in this fashion. After 7 years of overreaching by an Administration seemingly bent on the destruction of readiness, morale, and the supremacy of the U.S. military position — I find it refreshing that soon to be President Obama is not in favor of blank check applications of U.S. military power without proper planning and an answer to the following question: what would happen the day “after” the U.S. intervenes militarily into a conflict where the international community is either divided, or actively opposed, to an external actor invading a sovereign country? Or has the lesson of Iraq been lost on democrats who want to expend the lives of American soldiers for causes less than vital to our national interests?
Posted by: David Mussington | June 6, 2008, 10:38 am 10:38 am
I am now pretty disappointed with Obama’s middle east statements after all the rhetoric about fairness and fresh starts..
The conflict will not end without US pressure, and it seems like none will come from Obama if he personally believes that Arab East Jerusalem should just be gifted to Israel.
This is one of the main issues, and these statements show either his inexperience, or his willingness to trade principles for votes.
Posted by: DW | June 6, 2008, 11:08 am 11:08 am
“Now, of course, that means that if preventing genocide is not enough to trigger US intervention, obviously, *nothing* is. Obama is 100% isolationist and he’s made it very clear. No draft will be needed if he is not going to use the military for anything…”
How about using the military for DEFENSE, and not mucking about in other people’s countries?
Posted by: ECQ | June 6, 2008, 11:12 am 11:12 am
Hey, ECG; ask Neville Chamberlain how well *that* strategy worked for him.
Or 3000 or so the innocents working at the WTC…
If you wait for evil to come to your door, you’ll be fighting on his terms in your house not on your terms in his house. Ideally, fighting shouldn’t be necessary, but if it comes to that, it is best if its the other guy who buys the farm, not you or yours.
Sad that folks have already forgotten the two seminal lessons of the 20th century:
1- The best way to avoid fighting a war is to be prepared to fight it *and* let the other guy know it. (I.e., Cold War).
2- The Surest way to end up fighting a war is to be un-willing to fight at all and make sure *everybody* knows it.
Well, Obama sure has made it clear to all comers he is not going to fight for *anything* because in his book nothing is worth fighting over. That’s just the kinda guy he is. Jimmy Carter is proud of him.
Posted by: fjtorres | June 6, 2008, 11:42 am 11:42 am
I would feel more comftable if Obama would have attacked Carters maverick diplomacy at the time….seems to me that Obama’s policy was originally built around a debate gaffe and taken forward by his greatest ally Jimmy Carter.
Why didn’t Obama have the principles to strongly denounced Carter at the time…IF Obama’s feelings and policies actually differ from Farrakan and Wright and the hate rhetoric that his long time church preached that’s great.
I think he is going to have to at some point start to speak out quickly if this is the case.
McCains promise of an end to the “permanent campaign” is a lot more compelling an believable than Obama’s promise that he doesn’t not believe the views that his church teaches.
The confusion with Obama is not about Republican memos about his religion….the confusion is the obvious links (sanitized by the media) between Farrakan’s radical Islam and Hamas quotes in the “Trumpet” in November 2007 and Wright”s constant embrace of these views and Trinity teachings and 20 years of church attendence that Obama did not hear.
Posted by: Jackie | June 6, 2008, 12:14 pm 12:14 pm
Obamas Jerusalem backtrack
Wouldnt ya just know that his newfound (just in time for his AIPAC speech) tough stance on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was too good to be true? Check this out (and make sure to note where I add the bolded emphasis):
Facing criticism from …
Posted by: Sister Toldjah | June 6, 2008, 12:36 pm 12:36 pm
Sounds like the Rev Wright was correct…he is a true politician and will say whatever it takes to be elected.
Posted by: Dar | June 6, 2008, 2:07 pm 2:07 pm
this is yet further proof of his amateur status in foreign policy.
Posted by: mf | June 6, 2008, 3:37 pm 3:37 pm
La in Indiana,
On the recent news, The NY Senates have welcome her to come back to the senate soon.
Posted by: catleya | June 7, 2008, 1:27 am 1:27 am