When he appeared before AIPAC on June 4 and said “Let me be clear . . . [Jerusalem] must remain undivided,” Barack Obama was expressing a view he had taken formally, in writing, multiple times, in virtually identical terms, over an eight-year period.
This past Sunday, Obama told CNN his AIPAC pledge had been misunderstood: it had “poor phrasing” and careless “syntax.” He explained that by “undivided” he simply meant no barbed wire between the divisions -- a position that Paul Mirengoff at Power Line described as “dishonest, ignorant, or both,” and David Hazony at Contentions noted was ludicrously unrealistic.
In light of the plain meaning of his AIPAC words and his repeated prior statements to the same effect, Obama’s “poor phrasing” explanation is misleading at best. There is, however, an even more significant aspect of the CNN interview: Obama did not simply back out of his commitment to an undivided
Since 1995, it has been the official policy of the
Resolution 242 in no way refers to
Obama told CNN he was “not trying to predetermine what are essentially final status issues.” By endorsing the division of
He should have stuck to the policy reflected in Resolution 242, the policy expressly set forth in P.L. 104-45, the clear meaning of his prior statements, and his explicit and unambiguous pledge at AIPAC -- none of which had any poor phrasing or careless syntax.