“Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”This was in June, in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) right after he secured the nomination.
That lasted about a day.
It really is brave -- or at least it would be if he believed it -- because the Clinton and Bush administrations had never gone this far. Both were of the opinion that some sort of division of the city, probably along the lines of the 1967 war acquisition, would be part of a settlement between the Israelis and their Palestinians population.
Under attack from Palestinian and other Arab interests, Senator Obama quickly retreated -- and said that
“Well, obviously it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues.”He still likes the idea but
“My belief is that, as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute.”[1]So: "must remain undivided" translates to something like "wouldn't it be nice if it worked out that way."
Some history here: The capital of Israel is, indeed, Jerusalem, by a law enacted in that country in 1980. But the United Nations immediately voted that no member of the United Nations is allowed to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and this vote was 14 to zero with the US merely refusing to vote.
Countries, including the US, used Tel Aviv as the city for their embassies, after the UN ruled that Israel deciding its own capital was a violation of international law. Seriously, that's how it was described.
This is now so ingrained into the world community that the BBC last year issued a public apology for accidentally referring to Jerusalem as Israel's capital during a sports program.
So: What Barack Obama proposed is bold indeed. One could argue that it's a good thing for him that he was not serious.
Oh, and today he's back to sounding sort of serious again about Jerusalem being undivided "I've said that before and I'll say it again" -- except that "That's an issue that has to be dealt with by the parties involved." So he's not really saying it.
I support his "original" statement of June this year -- but it is not, at this point, an American decision. And if you're going to act like it is, you'd better have your wits about you -- otherwise it just sounds like empty chutzpah played for a Jewish audience.
[Update] Ah -- in an interview with the Jerusalem Post a bit ago, he wound up with: "I believe that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. But I think that how Israel and the Palestinians resolve this issue is a final-status issue. It needs to be left up to the two parties."
This is unremarkable except for Jerusalem's history -- and his own on this topic. It's a far cry from that "must be undivided" of last month. But that he's willing to defy the UN and call Jerusalem the capital is a good sign.
===|==============/ Level Head
[1] And just for a moment, ask yourself this: How many of the radical and expensive changes he proposes to make "as a practical matter would be very difficult to execute"? And if difficulties are enough to transform a "must" to a maybe, then what has he actually committed to doing even if it proves difficult?
