Obama on Jerusalem, Properly Phrased

In its lead editorial yesterday (“Obama in Jerusalem”), The New York Sun noted that Barack Obama’s continuing explanations of his AIPAC speech, in which he said Jerusalem “must remain undivided,” raise more questions than they answer.  Obama added yet another explanation yesterday in Sderot.

To decode his current position, it is useful to review in one place the various statements he has made on this issue.  So here is a compilation of them, followed by a JCI revision of his AIPAC speech to correct the poor phrasing that marred it. . . .

Continue reading at American Thinker today.

UPDATE:  The video below is from Charlie Gibson's interview yesterday with Obama:

GIBSON:  . . . You’ve said in the speech, to AIPAC, Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel.  And it must remain undivided.  When you said that, did you not realize the significance that that has for so many people in this region?

OBAMA:  Well, look, number one, the fact is that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.  And so I was simply saying a fact, with respect to –

GIBSON:  You said “must remain undivided” -- those are code words.

OBAMA:  Well the issue of it being undivided, I have said and I said immediately after the speech that that word was poorly chosen, that what I was referring to is making sure that we’re not setting up barbed wire across Israel.

GIBSON:  But Senator, it was a very simple, declarative statement.  It “must remain,” and you started the paragraph by saying, “Let me be clear.”

* * *

GIBSON:  So when you come down to it, what’s your feeling?  Jerusalem, undivided, as the capital, or re-divided?

OBAMA:  I think that it is going to have to be one of those final status decisions that are going to be made by the Palestinians and the Israelis.

So Obama has had at least four positions in the last two months:  (1) let me be clear, Jerusalem must remain undivided; (2) I just meant there should not be barbed wire between the divisions; (3) the Clinton partition plan for dividing Jerusalem is a starting point for negotiations; and (4) undivided, re-divided -- just "one of those final status decisions" to be made by Israel and the Palestinians, can't tell you my feeling. 

The first position was "poorly phrased."  The second was word-splitting that would embarrass Bill Clinton.  The third was an affirmative endorsement of dividing Jerusalem.  The fourth was a punt after the first three didn't work.  And throughout, he has maintained that he hasn't changed his original position.  This is the candidate who says words matter.

Comments

[yonaosn]

You said ("quoting" Obama) - "...just 'one of those final status decisions" to be made by Israel and the Palestinians',..."

He said (if that quote is correct)"...one of those final status decisions that are going to be made by the Palestinians and the Israelis."

You, as would I, put Israel first. But he, revealing what his real priorities are, puts the paleostinians first.

[Anti Obama.net]

Obama is just trying to make his way to November without making anyone too mad...he's pretty much willing to say anything to anyone in order to get a vote.