|
|
View My Stats |
 Subscribe in a reader |
|
|
June 5, 2008
Gee That Was Quick: Obama Backtracks On Jerusalem
Obama has a clarifying moment:
Obama Clarifies Remarks on JerusalemAh yes, the clarification that refreshes: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."
Obama, during a speech Wednesday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-israel lobbying group, had called for Jerusalem to become the site of the U.S. embassy, a frequent pledge for U.S. presidential candidates. (It is now in Tel Aviv.) But his statement that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel drew a swift rebuke from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
But Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) later said on behalf of the Obama campaign that Obama's comment to CNN should not be seen as backtracking or even an amendment. He said Obama was clarifying that he has long believed that it is up to the parties involved to determine the status of Jerusalem.The media does not seem to be buying that one:
Obama quickly backtracked today in an interview with CNN.
"Well, 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," Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.
Obama said "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."
So Obama wants to see Jerusalem remain an undivided city, instead insuring that everyone have access to the city--which of course is what has been the case since 1967. Or is he saying that "it would be very difficult to execute" but that is what they have to do.
Is he advocationg the Bill Clinton plan mentioned earlier in the article?
Former President Bill Clinton, before he left office, had proposed a formula under which "Jerusalem should be an open and undivided city," including locating the Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.
If this is what Obama is recommending, let him say so clearly and explicitly. When Obama says that "Israel has a legitimate claim on that city," does he mean a claim equal to the Palestinian Arabs or that Israel would be in control of Jerusalem, as it is now. How can you say both that Israel is in control of the entire city and also that the Palestinian Arabs will have a capital in East Jerusalem.
In the end, Obama has simply backtracked to "let them handle it"--and by backtracking has shown the Arab world that Obama's support for Israel can be manipulated.
And Soren Dayton writes at RedState:
So let's make this very clear. Under pressure from Palestinians and terrorists, Obama caves on perhaps Israel's most fundamental issue. Not a good sign for those meetings with Ahmadinejad.
by Daled Amos
Technorati Tag: Obama.
Posted by daledamos at June 5, 2008 11:41 PM
Hezbollah in passive voice
A cynical and mistrusted offer
Wapo: peace process succeeding because of the great work of the administration
Council speak 100610
Nyt: peace process failing despite the great work of the administration
Do we have enough regulations yet?
Iranian General: "US, Mossad played roles in 9/11 event"
Absolving arafat, ten years later
Rahm can't run? antisemites!
The politics of peace
How? The Vatican way: internationalization.
(I'm just the messenger.)
Ah, of course: the solution that is sure to infuriate everybody!
Where does Obama say this?
If he does say this, he merely opens himself up--once again--to the claim that his inexperience renders him unfit to be President of the United States.
Posted by: Daled Amos at June 6, 2008 1:51 AMDaled Amos, I was replying to the penultimate sentence (that's a question mark-less question) in the post above, which said "How can you say...", and I thought it was an unspecified "you," I didn't realize the sentence was directed at Obama.
The Vatican internationalization scheme is part of the historical record, Obama's a big book reader, he's aware of that I'm sure.
For the record, I'm an evangelical Bible-believing Christian that came out of the Catholic tradition, which I denounce. This stuff is also prophecy straight out of portions of the Tanakh and New Testament, both. It. Will Happen. Sorry.
Posted by: Cindy at June 6, 2008 2:46 AMAnd, p.s., do take note that the present 3-day Saudi-hosted religious summit of over 50 nations' reps (including Rafsanjani) is a prelude to interfaith talks with the Vatican, and indeed with all religions as part as the greater accelerating ecumenical movement. Not good.
Posted by: Cindy at June 6, 2008 3:02 AMCindy,
"How can you say..." was directed to anyone with an opinion. I do not know if Obama is aware of the internationalization plan or not--we are past the primaries and I do not see any reason to make assumptions about what anything the 2 candidates know or don't know/believe or don't believe.
In Obama's case in particular, he has not proven his knowledge/grasp of history: his comment about Kennedy and Nixon as negotiating with enemies is troubling in revealing a superficial and downright incorrect grasp of the facts, just as his claim that McCain should respect his (Obama's) accomplishments just as Obama respects McCain's--that is a nice rhetorical trick: assuming that Obama has accomplishments worth respecting, but what exactly are those accomplishments?
BTW, where is the internationalization of Jerusalem found in Tanakh?
Posted by: Daled Amos at June 6, 2008 9:39 AMHow can you consider it a backtrack. His meaning was pretty clear from the beginning.
No one really believes that Jerusalem will remain under 100% Israeli control in any peace agreement. Thats an issue that was settled almost a decade ago.
Posted by: joecitizen at June 6, 2008 12:17 PMCindy has drunk the obama kool-aid I'm afraid. Anyhow, what did I tell you. However I figured Obama would at least wait until he got into the White House before he backtracked. As far as Wexler is a disgrace as are other Jewish democrats who put party before the country and before their Judaism.
Posted by: Laura at June 6, 2008 12:25 PMObama fits the criteria of the anti Chtist to a tee. The slick talker who will mesmerize the ignorant masses and will not do what he says.
My friend the math genie say you number not add up.
Morgan blows
Posted by: Bruce at June 6, 2008 1:44 PMJoe,
Obviously Obama was not clear at all. If he had been, his remarks would not have resulted in the standing ovation in the room, the laudatory remarks from pro-Israel groups, or the condemnation of Arab leaders, nor would it have caused the comments that followed the "clarification"
Reuters reported on the original remarks:
Israel’s security is sacrosanct and it must retain a qualitative military advantage, Obama said. Any peace deal must include Palestinian recognition that Jerusalem would remain Israel’s undivided capital, he said.
I agree that Obama's meaning was clear from the beginning--and saying that Jerusalem "would remain Israel’s undivided capital" can mean only one thing.
As far as your other comment that "No one really believes that Jerusalem will remain under 100% Israeli control in any peace agreement. Thats an issue that was settled almost a decade ago."--that is irrelevant to this discussion. All that matters in this discussion is simply what Obama actually said, and what he said is clear.