Obama stumbles on Jerusalem statement. Ticks off Palestenians. Backtracks.

[Queasy]

Washington Post

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.

"This statement is totally rejected," Abbas told reporters in Ramallah. "The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state."

The Bush administration's official position is that the status of Jerusalem is among the most sensitive issues and must be decided by the parties. 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 Palestian capital in East 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."

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.

Good to see that superior Obama judgment in matters of Foreign Policy...again. Doesn't recognize current or former policy in the matter of a sensitive subject and ends up stepping in it...again.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Washington Post

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.

"This statement is totally rejected," Abbas told reporters in Ramallah. "The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state."

The Bush administration's official position is that the status of Jerusalem is among the most sensitive issues and must be decided by the parties. 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 Palestian capital in East 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."

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.

Good to see that superior Obama judgment in matters of Foreign Policy...again. Doesn't recognize current or former policy in the matter of a sensitive subject and ends up stepping in it...again.

Almost as bad as not knowing the different between Sunni/shite and thinking Iran is training AQ....among other things. Seems were gonna be fucked no matter who we chose huh? Even if people vote RP in the world will not smell like flowers no matter how hards he tries to get out of everyones affairs.

 

[Queasy]

Jerusalem Post - Apparently, now the Israelis are upset about Obama's backtrack.

Many on the right of the political spectrum among America's Jews welcomed Obama's remarks at AIPAC, but the clarification of his position left several cold.

"The Orthodox Union is extremely disappointed in this revision of Senator Obama's important statement about Jerusalem," said Nathan Diament, director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. He had sent out a release Wednesday applauding Obama's Jerusalem remarks in front of AIPAC.

"In the current context, everyone understands that saying 'Jerusalem... must remain undivided' means that the holy city must remain unified under Israeli rule, as it has been since 1967," Diament explained.

"If Senator Obama intended his remarks at AIPAC to be understood in this way, he said nothing that would reasonably lead to such a different interpretation."

Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America and another Jewish activist who had originally lauded Obama's statement, now called the candidate's words "troubling."

"It means he used the term inappropriately, possibly to mislead strong supporters of Israel that he supports something he doesn't really believe," Klein charged.

But congressman Robert Wexler, a Democrat from Florida with ties to the Jewish community and a long-time supporter of Obama, rejected the idea that the Illinois senator had been misleading with his comments.

"Everyone knows that Jerusalem is a final status issue. That is not a secret to anyone. Senator Obama says emphatically that should the Israelis and the Palestinians negotiate [an agreement], he will respect their conclusions and that he will not dictate a particular resolution."

And some groups were pleased by the clarification on Jerusalem provided by the campaign.

"There was reaction from some of our base who were taken aback by it and thought he was undermining the peace process," said Americans for Peace Now spokesman Ori Nir, who described his organization as "gratified" by the clarified position which seems to follow APN's policy that sovereignty of Jerusalem could be shared in a final peace settlement.

Obama has faced questions about his support for Israel from hawkish quarters of the Jewish community, and his campaign said the speech before AIPAC, following a town hall meeting at a Florida synagogue last month, were key elements in shoring up the Jewish vote, which generally goes to the Democrats.

"We think we've gotten a good reaction to the speech and we're pleased that we've gotten a good reaction," said the campaign adviser of the candidate's AIPAC address, which received multiple sustained standing ovations.

Palestinian factions though were particularly troubled by the original speech's original language on an undivided Jerusalem.

"This statement is totally rejected," said Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, whom a top aide described as "disappointed."

"The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state," Abbas said.

The Obama campaign adviser said that whatever the international reaction, it was important for the Illinois senator to "make his positions clear."

"Our main audience is American voters at the moment. Other people want to know where he stands and it's important that they do know where he stands," he said.

Speaking generally about the speech, which also stressed the importance of a secure Israel and the need to isolate Hamas, Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters: "Obama's comments have confirmed that there will be no change in the US administration's foreign policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict."

 

[Zebo]

Change!

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Jerusalem Post - Apparently, now the Israelis are upset about Obama's backtrack.

Many on the right of the political spectrum among America's Jews welcomed Obama's remarks at AIPAC, but the clarification of his position left several cold.

"The Orthodox Union is extremely disappointed in this revision of Senator Obama's important statement about Jerusalem," said Nathan Diament, director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. He had sent out a release Wednesday applauding Obama's Jerusalem remarks in front of AIPAC.

"In the current context, everyone understands that saying 'Jerusalem... must remain undivided' means that the holy city must remain unified under Israeli rule, as it has been since 1967," Diament explained.

"If Senator Obama intended his remarks at AIPAC to be understood in this way, he said nothing that would reasonably lead to such a different interpretation."

Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America and another Jewish activist who had originally lauded Obama's statement, now called the candidate's words "troubling."

"It means he used the term inappropriately, possibly to mislead strong supporters of Israel that he supports something he doesn't really believe," Klein charged.

But congressman Robert Wexler, a Democrat from Florida with ties to the Jewish community and a long-time supporter of Obama, rejected the idea that the Illinois senator had been misleading with his comments.

"Everyone knows that Jerusalem is a final status issue. That is not a secret to anyone. Senator Obama says emphatically that should the Israelis and the Palestinians negotiate [an agreement], he will respect their conclusions and that he will not dictate a particular resolution."

And some groups were pleased by the clarification on Jerusalem provided by the campaign.

"There was reaction from some of our base who were taken aback by it and thought he was undermining the peace process," said Americans for Peace Now spokesman Ori Nir, who described his organization as "gratified" by the clarified position which seems to follow APN's policy that sovereignty of Jerusalem could be shared in a final peace settlement.

Obama has faced questions about his support for Israel from hawkish quarters of the Jewish community, and his campaign said the speech before AIPAC, following a town hall meeting at a Florida synagogue last month, were key elements in shoring up the Jewish vote, which generally goes to the Democrats.

"We think we've gotten a good reaction to the speech and we're pleased that we've gotten a good reaction," said the campaign adviser of the candidate's AIPAC address, which received multiple sustained standing ovations.

Palestinian factions though were particularly troubled by the original speech's original language on an undivided Jerusalem.

"This statement is totally rejected," said Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, whom a top aide described as "disappointed."

"The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state," Abbas said.

The Obama campaign adviser said that whatever the international reaction, it was important for the Illinois senator to "make his positions clear."

"Our main audience is American voters at the moment. Other people want to know where he stands and it's important that they do know where he stands," he said.

Speaking generally about the speech, which also stressed the importance of a secure Israel and the need to isolate Hamas, Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters: "Obama's comments have confirmed that there will be no change in the US administration's foreign policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict."

It will be interesting the day Americans realize they won't fix that conflict no matter what.

 

[First]

I suppose it's good news if this is all Obama will screw up. Certainly nowhere near as bad as current or past administration officials (I'm of course assuming Barack will be POTUS, which at this point in time is a lock).

 

[magomago]

It would be nice if Obama is actually trying to take a more fair approach to the conflict, but is stumbling because he has to lie to die hard Zionists about that because they (sadly) can kill a presidential candidate if they choose to. Of course it is speculation, but we can only hope.

 

[jpeyton]

Non issue.

This story is a stinking corpse.

 

[bamacre]

I'd rather us solve some of the problems in this country before intervening in affairs overseas.

 

[sportage]

Few except Jimmy Carter see a problem here.
I dont think too many die hard Palestinians fans in the crowd.
Or elsewhere.

 

[Sinsear]

Wow; in his pandering to the Jews he pissed off the palestinians. I wonder if Hamas will ask for their campaign donations back.

 

[lupi]

Change! another word for flip-flop.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Non issue.

This story is a stinking corpse.

LOL! You say that about anything brought up about Obama.

 

[Lemon law]

A hypothetical President Obama would have access to experts on these matters and clearly candidate Obama does not. If we wanted someone who knew the issues, we would have nominated Hillary. But I do agree, Obama and McCain have much to learn about the mid-east, who are the players, and what teams do they really play for? Which is more a job for scholars and experts with a lifetime of experience. And face the facts, no one can be an expert in all fields, which is why a President calls on advisers who are experts in limited areas.

We elect our leaders for the future judgments they are likely to make, which is precisely why we did not select a Romney, a Giullani, a Fred Thompson, a Kucinich, a Hillary, or a Ron Paul. And many Americans were totally fooled by GWB who billed himself as being a uniter and not a divider and ended up being something totally different. And like McCain and Obama, GWB clearly was not an expert on foreign affairs, but at least in my mind, the primary failure of GWB&co lies in the fact that his advisers were too monochrome, largely on a power trip, and all convinced they could impose their will on others.

I am hoping that Obama will take this gaffe as somewhat of a wakeup call, because he totally bungled this issue, and has now done something a politician should not do, namely he managed to alienate everyone on all sides of the issue. While some of Obama's foreign policy stances disturb me, I still have more faith in his judgment than in McCain's in a Presidential setting. Because that what President's do, they can and should listen to a wide variety of expert opinions from their advisers, and decide which is the overall best course. But anytime a President blunders around in ignorance of issues, they always flop.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
A hypothetical President Obama would have access to experts on these matters and clearly candidate Obama does not. If we wanted someone who knew the issues, we would have nominated Hillary. But I do agree, Obama and McCain have much to learn about the mid-east, who are the players, and what teams do they really play for? Which is more a job for scholars and experts with a lifetime of experience. And face the facts, no one can be an expert in all fields, which is why a President calls on advisers who are experts in limited areas.

Well, maybe Sen. Obama and his foreign policy advisers need to bone up on these subjects before speaking like he's an expert on them? He did the same thing when he spoke about using membership in the World Trade Organization as an incentive for Iran. However, the Bush Administration already offered membership in the World Trade Organization along with the EU. Iran rejected it.

As a nation, Iranians are among the few in the world that still like the U.S. As a revolution, however, Iran is the principal bastion of anti-Americanism. Last month, Tehran hosted an international conference titled "A World Without America." Indeed, since the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, Iran has returned to a more acute state of revolutionary hysteria. Mr. Ahmadinejad seems to truly believe the "Hidden Imam" is coming to conquer the world for his brand of Islam. He does not appear to be interested in the kind of "carrots" that Secretary Rice was offering two years ago and Mr. Obama is hinting at today.

Mr. Ahmadinejad is talking about changing the destiny of mankind, while Mr. Obama and his foreign policy experts offer spare parts for Boeings or membership in the World Trade Organization. Perhaps Mr. Obama is unaware that one of Mr. Ahmadinejad's first acts was to freeze Tehran's efforts for securing WTO membership because he regards the outfit as "a nest of conspiracies by Zionists and Americans."

Obama is very skilled at the soaring rhetoric. However, he and his foreign policy advisers are dangerously naive and uninformed about foreign policy history.