Obama: Clearing the Mideast Slate
Ezra Klein alerts us that Gershom Gorenberg, whose blog at Southjerusalem.com is indispensable on the Region That Will Not Go Away, posts this striking follow-up to Obama's most troubling, potentially most consequential pander to date, what certainly sounded like an over-the-top more-Promised-Land-Than-Moses declaration to AIPAC last month that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." Gorenberg:
When I criticized that statement, an Obama adviser quickly emailed to tell me the candidate really meant physically undivided: No fences. Political arrangements were a different matter. Obama, he said,has said before that Jerusalem is a final status issue to be negotiated by the parties, but that two principles that should guide any outcome is that it will remain Israel's capital and it should never be redivided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was from 1948-67.
The campaign has repeated this "clarification" more than once (see here and here), but I don't think any references worked their way into the U. S. press. In any event, Obama, on Fareed Zakaria's CNN show, last Sunday, July 13, himself made the crooked straight on camera. Here's what he said:
"You know, the truth is that this was an example where we had some poor phrasing in the speech. And we immediately tried to correct the interpretation that was given....The point we were simply making was, is that we don't want barbed wire running through Jerusalem, similar to the way it was prior to the '67 war, that it is possible for us to create a Jerusalem that is cohesive and coherent."
Gorenberg: "That's flipflopping only if the definition of 'flipflopping' includes 'saying something dumb to a receptive audience, and then having the sense to correct the mistake.'"
And so, his slate cleaned, on to Jerusalem and Ramallah for what could be some seriously straight talk.
Update: Thanks to Seth Colter Walls for the references to the Obama campaign's previous clarifications.
I suppose the question people will have to ask themselves is whether they believe Obama really only had some "poor phrasing" in the Aipac speech, or if he intentionally employed vaguely maximalist phrasing in the Aipac speech, to generate a very positive and enthusiastic response from his live audience, knowing all along he would then "clarify" his remarks later in other forums, when most of that original audience was no longer paying attention.
July 18, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only possible answer is: We don't know. Just as we don't know what a president will do. These are bedrock truths we have to live with.
July 18, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even George W. Bush wasn't that extreme (although Hillary had similar rhetoric during the primary) so I think whoever gets elected will adopt a more realistic approach once they get in office.
July 19, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses. Youve got a design here thats not too flashy, but makes a statement as big as what youre saying. Great job,children health indeed.
January 19, 2011 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems pretty standard for politicians to cater to a live audience by selecting that part of their
policy that will be most acceptable.
As for
July 19, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!
Best regards, Mary, CEO of youtube to mp3
December 20, 2010 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you see that straight talk coming from BHO, or from the adviser that tells you what BHO's words really meant?
July 18, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jerusalem United
So, who controls the police? what stores get to open when? what hallowed ground is where?
What's the plan? Two Men in a Jeep?
July 18, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
what part of "Jerusalem is a final status issue to be negotiated by the parties" makes it unclear to you that obama believes the details (beyond 'capital of israel' and 'no physical barriers') ought to be worked out by the israelis and the palestinians rather than the POTUS??
do you believe that jerusalem ought NOT be the capital of israel??
do you imagine that jerusalem ought to be divided with razor wire??
or are you actually trying to argue that if jerusalem is to be the capital of israel and undivided by physical barriers, the president of the united states ought to have a detailed plan that covers every last square foot of the city and every last minute of every day on the calendars?
the devil's always in the details and anything difficult is easier said than done. stating the obvious counts for nothing when it's already understood.
July 19, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I fear you are avoiding, as is TG, the meaning of an "undivided" Jerusalem. It is quite clear, as it was to the Palestinians, that an undivided Jerusalem is a dog whistle endorsement of an annexation of Jerusalem as Israel favors. This is in stark contrast to what Israel is accorded by international law, the international consensus codified by the UNGA's vote on the "Peaceful Resolution of the Palestine Question," and what the Palestinian people want.
An undivided Jerusalem is as tenable as "throwing Israel into the sea," as the old refrain went. In fact, by ad ovating an "undivided" Jerusalem to AIPAC, a concept quite clear to trained watchers of the middle east, Obama is imparting a decision against the will of interested parties, something yous supposedly decry.
If someone want to argue the merits of making crass political moves for gain, that is fine. But to willfully insist that Obama's statement in front of AIPAC was misinterpreted is intellectually dishonest. The annexation of Jerusalem as an undivided entity governed by Israel is an established position of the state of Israel. Let's not pretend otherwise. To suggest this is some "minute" detail ignores the parameters of UN 242, Oslo, and the so-called road map.
July 19, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apologies for the typos. However, one last thing: The insistence that since Obama has clarified his position multiple times on the matter all is well is absurd.
Does anyone believe when a politician tells an important business lobby something--as democrats often do--while backtracking to a more acceptable position to a broader audience (the electorate) that he or she is being more authentic, only to later betray them for a more powerful group. Last I checked, Israel and its lobby (yes, that is what it's called) are much more powerful than the disparate entities that forcefully, and that is the operative word (not the countries fearful of falling out of favor), that support true Palestinian determination--liberal but powerless Israelis, various marginal Arab groups, and progressive American Jews with little institutional power (J Street is new and small).
So when a politician tells a powerful lobby he is supportive of their position, it's rare that he is then going to betray them for a less powerful, and electorally immaterial, group.
FDR did not tell the business community he wanted to deregulate their industries and then sweep through with the new deal (and yes I know Roosevelt did not start as fire breather, but nor was he painfully trying to placate and please. So while I think, or is it hope, Obama holds more sensible views, I am not going to ignore what he tells powerful groups. No one should. History often paints a bleak picture.
July 19, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen, Thanks for the link to Two Men in a Jeep. Very interesting and pertinent. But I assume you are not saying that Jerusalem should be divided with physical barriers like Berlin was, or Jerusalem was when Jordan had the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
To me, it seems like if there is some kind of peace, and a two-state solution, the two sides can work out local control issues.
July 19, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's Benny Morris from yesterdays NY Times.
"ISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months — and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war — either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb."
Did anybody here notice?
You think Gorenberg is indispensable. Others would say the same of Ali Abunimah, the PCHR, As'ad AbuKhalil, Helena Cobban and Tony Karon. They notice what you ignore: your kinder gentler racism.
July 19, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Madison believed that we should have separation of church and state throughout the land, federal and local. There was a fascinating moment during the congressional debate over what became the First Amendment. How could the beloved First Amendment be harmful to religion? Huntington feared that it would overturn or interfere with Connecticut’s approach, which was to have state-supported religion.
Chat | Chat
March 2, 2011 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
religious sect may degenerate into a political faction,' wrote James Madison, but the new American nation would nevertheless be protected against the ungovernable combination of religious fervor and political power as long as the Constitution prohibited the federal government from establishing any particular creed as preeminent.
Egitim | Chat
March 2, 2011 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you good until this issue thanks admin.
Chat | chat
March 3, 2011 4:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of backup exec hyper v, iscsi initiator for windows
April 7, 2011 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of windows high availability
May 4, 2011 3:28 AM | Reply | Permalink