Rachael Maddow finds it OK, since it means Obama won't wait to be attacked by McCain on muscular foreign policy.

And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith

What did I tell you, FreeBubba?

He hasn't said enough yet to freak out over -- it's not a huge departure from US policy, and not even different from the other 2 primary candidates' positions. I don't see where the shock is coming from here.

To start with, a 'unified Jerusalem' doesn't mean much until you define the boundaries of Jerusalem. The borders will be redrawn, ceding some areas like Abu Dis for al-Qud but will definitely not be a return to 1967 east/west boundaries. It's worth nothing that the official Palestinian position supports keeping Jerusalem unified regardless of who has sovereignty. The city will never be a corpus separatum either, so what options does that leave?

FreeBubba, thanks for raising this important issue. I just read the speech and I am bummed. Doubly so because I first read the "prepared remarks" version, then realized my error and went back to read the actual speech as delivered. The speech he gave was quite a departure from the original text, with a much more heavy-handed treatment of Iran. Straying into macho bullshit territory.

I started this primary season with no ax to grind for any of the Dem candidates (but a slight preference for Edwards), and over time I have taken quite a shine to Obama, especially after HRC began using Repub talking points. But this speech is severely disappointing, and needs to be discussed frankly by Obamaphiles, even now in the midst of the post-primary celebrations.

I am 50 years old (in a few weeks), and I know enough to expect any politician to disappoint me at least occasionally. There is always a danger of unrealistically idealizing any leader. I have been feeling more than a little hopeful that Obama is a cut above the usual crop, but this makes me question that.

Thoughts, anyone?

Divided city ... Berlin. In a divided country. How'd that work out?

I thought Obama's speech hit just the right notes: tough where he needed to be, but forceful on the one thing that will assure Israel's peaceful existence: a Palestinian homeland. Without that, this never-ending war zone will continue.

Now that he's got the nomination, Obama is going to distance himself from progressives time and again. It disappoints, but I guess I never expected anything different. I take faith in the fact that he's coming from a progressive background (in a way that we haven't seen in several generations) and that, at its core, will shape the way he sees the world.

Neither Obama nor Clinton are particularly progressive. Neither are the late, great hope for a just foreign policy. We always have to settle for less.

I don't have high hopes. I just want something better than we had with the Chimperor. And Obama will achieve that. He won't be a warmonger, or a war criminal, or a huge international embarrassment. He'll restore some of America's prestige with her allies. That's about all we can expect.

While I see where you would be disappointed or in disagreement or even concerned that Barack is pulling a fast one, I didn't find anything he said "troubling" in what he said. I am also not too worried about anything said on the campaign trail during this general election. Barack's real accountability, for me, is the day he raises his right hand and take the oath of office.

If he doesn't govern like a progressive democrat from day one, I will have some serious issues. I actually think he is way more progressive than he can run a campaign on right now and still win. I am will to at least give him his first term to deliver on his campaign promises and wait to see if the actual policies are better or worse than promised.

Now, before I am accused of drinking some sort of sugary children's beverage, let me explain.

MercerReader hinted at the reason Barack is likely to seem a little less democratic mainstream progressive in his speeches to general election audiences. He is running a different campaign and must speak to new constituencies in a new way. He must get elected in a media environment that will do everything it can to see him fail. He has to get elected in a system that keeps 96% of incumbents going back to Congress without a credible challenge and a federal government riddled with special interests and cynicism. I believe this is a very fine line to tread and he will both make mistakes as well make choices that his supporters don't understand.

Given his performance to date, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows how to win the general election.

I believe his main effort as president will be to seek a two state solution in the most most effective way as possible. If that means an undivided city with the capitals of both states in Jerusalem then that is what he will advocate. If the administration feels something different would work better that will be their focus.

At the end of the day, though, it will be the Palestinians and the Israelis who determine what the final peace agreement will look like.

I could say I told you so (I told you so) but I'd rather say what else would you have him do? His foreign policy positions were way out in move on.org land in the primary particularly his criticisms about Hillary Clinton's comments on Iran were they to launch a nuclear strike against Israel and his foreign policy position that he;'s willing to negotiate on a presidential level with the world's worst dictators (with caveats that have grown as the race as turned towards the general).

That just doesn't play in the general election. Yes it means he changed his position because he's a politician, but it also means he'll do what it takes to win rather than be all righteous and insistent upon a principle that is not shared by the vast majority of the American voters. The Cubans community in Miami were pissed about his Castro positions, and so he changed it.

This is politics. I certainly believe his foreign policy views are on the more liberal side than he expressed at AIPAC and I am sure his diplomacy efforts will be vigorous if he is elected. The operative phrase being if he is elected. You don't get elected by being soft on foreign policy particularly in those swing states like VA, NC etc. It's a smart move, disappointing to his more idealistic supporters, but it is to quote Richard Ben Cramer, what it takes to win the white house.

I really didn't care one way or the other on this particular issue, to be honest - but I do care that Obama seems not to be able to make up his mind. Now (Friday) he is "backing off" his statement from Wednesday: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/06/AR2008060601590.html?hpid=topnews

Running a freshman senator with not much experience is hard enough - having him practically beg to be called "flip flopper" is even tougher. Don't get me wrong, Obama still has my vote, but I'm really starting to wonder whether naivete (on the candidates part, and on the part of his most ardent - and unpersuadable - supporters) is going to be a problem this fall.

Most of this thread presupposes that "undivided Jerusalem" + "Israel's capital" = "no Palestinian capital in Jerusalem". But that simply is not the idea. There is no reason why two states cannot have their capitals in the same city without physically carving it up. Of course that would require a comprehensive two-state solution and some unusual administrative arrangements, but it's not impossible. As far as I can see, this has always been Obama's position on this.

Setting aside general policy themes. Is this different from the specific Isreal policy he took from day one in the campaign. Maybe, and I just missed it. But my recollection is that as the candidates traveled through Iowa endlessly the only two who offered a different approach to Isreal were Kuccinch and Gavel. Obama certaintly talked about the suffering of the Palestinian people and the need for Isreal to be the party to move the peace process forward, but it was always accompanied by the type of statements he gave recently, which drove some folks nuts. See
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank03162007.html.

Could it be he views Isreal as the type of country, given their history and being surrounded by enemies, that will only potentially take guidance/direction from someone who is unequivocal on certain issues. That was my hope as I watched Obama seemingly in recognition of the plight of the Palestinians and the need for Isreal to move the peace process while also steadfast on standing by certain positions.

No one will force Peace on Isreal. Hell, by Jimmy Carter's account they are now one of the leading nuclear powers in the world.

I'm definitely out of my league on this issue. But I'm not seeing a difference in where Obama has always been here. But if I'm wrong, happy to be educated.

I find it somewhat amusing how many commenters here are shocked, shocked that Obama's policy with respect to Israel is anything less than they had hoped for. And I am even more astounded by the bald-faced hypocracy of the same commenters who during the primary lauded Obama for his integrity and refusal to "pander," vilifying Clinton for her willingness to "say or do anything" to get elected, but now have no problem saying that it's ok, Obama didn't really mean what he said to AIPAC, he just needs the jewish votes, and he'll act differently once elected.

I was not at all surprised by Obama's speech to AIPAC. He has always taken cautious positions on issues (could someone point me to one truly bold initiative of his?) and his stance on Israel/Palestine is well within the mainstream foreign policy thought on both sides of the aisle and among the American public. I happen to share his view. I believe he will be more involved in trying to make peace and will be more credible as a broker, but his, and America's, support for Israel will not diminish. I happen to agree with everything he said (except that the option of dividing Jerusalem in some fashion should never be completely off the table).

Lastly, I don't want to get into a discussion on Israel's right to exist, its perfidy, or the merits of the Palestinian cause. Those discussions are rarely civil and never get anywhere, unless name-calling is a destination of choice.

I am so disheartened by the blatant anti-Israel tone of much of this thread. Have any of you ever been there? Do you know any actual Israelis? Can you imagine for even a second living in a place where all of your neighbors want to wipe you off the map? Do you not understand that "Palestine" didn't exist as a sovereign nation before 1948, and that the plans for a peaceably divided state were accepted by Israel--even though they fell far short of what Israel wanted--and denied by the Arabs because (drumroll, please) the Arab world denied Israel's right to exist? It wasn't simply the terms they didn't like (again, Israel didn't like them either), it was the very fact of Israel's existence they were against--AND STILL ARE.

This is not about pandering to AIPAC and garnering politcal power. It is about realistic and necessary concessions on both sides--which a vast majority of Israeli's favor--among which a divided Jerusalem should not be one. A divided Jerusalem is a disaster for everyone, not only Jews and Israel. (Jerusalem is not a footnote for Muslims--whoever said this made a mistake. The Al Oxa mosque is built on the Temple Mount because it is believed to be the birthplace of the world, which I believe is also said to be the site from which Mohammad rose on his winged horse. The place is full of Holy sites for Christians as well, a great many of which were cut off when Jerusalem was divided.)

As far as Iran, it is worthy of note that a significant amount of the tension in the American Jewish and Israeli communities has been about Obama's desire to talk to Iran and take diplomatic action, which has translated into potentially anti-Israel policies. (Iran has promised to destroy Israel, remember.)

It is a good sign that people on BOTH sides of the issue are nervous. Stay nervous, but try not to be so reactionary.

If you want to be president, you need to get elected by the country you have, not the country you want.

Correction-
Last half of his troubled second term.
Hillary- not once this entire primary season.

Does it make a difference to the tone or substance of this thread that Obama has clarified that by "undivided" he simply means that there will not be a physical barrier separating different parts of the city, not that he thinks it important that all of Jerusalem be under Israeli control? It seems to me that, understood in the fashion which Obama has now explicitly made clear, most of FreeBubba's disappointment ceases to make much sense. Is this a misunderstanding of the nature of his complaint on my part?

Please don't try to make our relationship with Israel the most important issue in the upcoming election.

I understand how people will often inflate the issue that they think is most critical and make it into the "Number One, without-this-nothing-exists", but that's just not the way it is.

To say that Barack is no longer about change because of a speech he made to AIPAC is pretty stupid.

From the Washington Post

Obama Clarifies Remarks on Jerusalem

...

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."

Barack's ill-considered position, when combined with his willingness to invade Pakistan, may be enough to expose him as another unacceptable Democratic candidate.

If he meant what he said about Jerusalem, and I have little doubt that he did mean it, he has informed the Palestinians that he is unwilling to negotiate about one of their most important needs. Further, he has provided OBL and his lesser ilk with new recruits, financing, and vigor.

If Barack did not mean what he said, as Bubba says, the change bubble has indeed burst.

Excellently thought out and expressed, FreeBubba. Highly recommended.

"Barack's ill-considered position, when combined with his willingness to invade Pakistan, may be enough to expose him as another unacceptable Democratic candidate."

Obama has said that he's willing to invade Pakistan? When? Show me the quote.

Well I do think it was kinda pandering. On the other hand, I know that he's since "clarfied" his position about how it really should be up to the Palestinians and Israelis and it shouldn't be off the table to negotiate about it. I find that pretty reasonable and much more in keeping with his general writing and history.

I personally don't see how a divided capital for both Israel and Palestine is really feasible, logistically speaking. Though I see why each side wants the city emotionally.

Of course the whole situation is a big mess for both the Palestinians and Israelis. I know that the Israeli govt. can be reactionary and do horrible things, but I also know that there are rockets that go in and kill Israeli citizens. And Israeli kids who are killed on buses, or people in malls and the streets who are blown up. And those are just citizens, not soldiers, not the govt., and most of them, like most Palestinians, do want peace. And most Palestinians and Israelis want two states.

I know that the whole situation is very complicated and messy on both ends and there isn't any easy solution. So from me he gets a slight ding on the pandering, but slightly modified by clarifying to a more nuanced position. And I do actually realize that sometimes I will just genuinely disagree with Obama and I never expected him to be perfect all the time. Though I am probably alone in not disagreeing that I find the divided city thing to be untenable and probably shouldn't be.

This idea that somehow THIS and this alone means he is utterly a phony! And he really won't try and change anything! is just absurd to me. This assigns more god-like powers to Obama than any of his so-called kool-aid drinking followers do. Obama and I will disagree on policy. He will make mistakes. What I hope is that generally he won't make many of them to begin with because he's a smart guy. But when he does, he can learn from them, own up to them, not do them again. That's all any of us can expect. Oh and this doesn't mean we can't call him out when we do disagree and want him to change his mind. I don't expect a perfect god, thanks.

I am happy to support a candidate who is deemed by the MSM or his opponents to have "flip-flopped" merely because he states a position in a nuanced way rather than jumping to a black-white soundbite position. You could also substitute "cautious" for "flip-flopped".

The thing is, Democratic candidates generally are painted as flip-floppers merely because they generally hold more nuanced, thoughtful positions than the Republicans. When you produce a nuanced position, it will be distilled by one listener into one soundbite, and by another listener into a different one. I believe (at least so far) that when Obama is being accused of "flip-flopping" or "too cautious" he is merely pointing out that there are multiple facets to practically any issue.

To speak to the current brouhaha, Obama stating that he prefers a physically undivided Jerusalem but that the final structure of any modus vivendi between Israel and Palestine is up to them, even if THEY wish to split the city, can be heard by one person as "divided Jerusalem acceptable" and another as "divided Jerusalem unacceptable. It's not Obama who has flip-flopped, it is just that his explanation is too nuanced to fall within the radar of what currently passes as political reporting and analysis.

I'm satisfied that Obama will be PUSHING things in the progressive directions I prefer, and that he is intelligent and genuine enough to see when a particularly intransigent progressive position might have to be abandoned either because it is too intransigent or politically not achievable.

Take health care. I refuse to get my panties in a twist over the differences between Obama's and Clinton's health care proposals. NEITHER one will be enacted in its current form. But at least Obama's recognizes (I believe) that it will take consistent pressure always pushing closer to universal coverage, but buying each step with whatever compromise is necessary to get it done. Clinton already demonstrated in the 90's what happens when you try to take a fully-formed extreme position and ram it down the throats of your opponents (even within her own party). How'd that work out for us?

In some ways, Bill Clinton's "triangulation" was exactly this same kind of compromising (rather than "flip-flopping" as , again, it was described at the time), and I believe his budgetary success rested primarily on just this type of negotiation, rather than the "my way or the highway" attitude we have seen in spades so recently from the White House.

BTW, here is a little tidbit that many may not know about Obama's education and cultural background.

I live in Hawaii, and my son attended the same school that Obama attended (Punahou Academy). As a prestigious private school, Punahou takes a lot of flak about having rich snobs in attendance and certainly there are plenty of them to be found on the campus. But the school nurtures many extracurricular processes to break this down and build good experiences for the personal development of students (Juniors are chosen to be counselors for small groups of entering freshman, sixth graders have a pen-pal that they look out for from one of the earlier grades, etc.)

One of the most compelling innovations is the use of the Hawaiian concept of ho'oponopono, described here:

"The Hawaiians have another tradition called "ho'oponopono". It is a process for setting things right in order to sustain a happy and peaceful home and family. Ho'oponopono involves talking about the problems with truthfulness and sincerity. It requires making amends and forgiveness. And this forgiveness is made possible by first clearing the air and then by your willingness to let go of any trace of grievance and restore a place of peace between you. "

One of the years in the curriculum includes a formal implementation of ho'oponopono, where groups of students meet under supervision of an instructor on a regular basis and the concepts of ho'oponopono are implemented: in that room, students are encouraged to bring up ANY grievances they may have about one another and they learn how to talk things out to restore harmony and peace. In the multiethnic, multicultural society which exists however imperfectly in Hawaii, the use of ho'oponopono is critical to learning how to see things from the perspective of people who are quite different from you.

This concept is ingrained in students who are willing to take the opportunity to accept it, and I am willing to bet Obama made the best of the opportunity.

I'd also be willing to bet that the recent meeting between Obama and Clinton was a good example of ho'oponopono.