Gee That Was Quick: Obama Backtracks On Jerusalem

Obama has a clarifying moment:

Obama Clarifies Remarks on Jerusalem

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.

Ah yes, the clarification that refreshes:

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.

The media does not seem to be buying that one:

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."

So Obama wants to see Jerusalem remain an undivided city, instead insuring that everyone have access to the city--which of course is what has been the case since 1967. Or is he saying that "it would be very difficult to execute" but that is what they have to do.

Is he advocationg the Bill Clinton plan mentioned earlier in the article?

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 Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.

If this is what Obama is recommending, let him say so clearly and explicitly. When Obama says that "Israel has a legitimate claim on that city," does he mean a claim equal to the Palestinian Arabs or that Israel would be in control of Jerusalem, as it is now. How can you say both that Israel is in control of the entire city and also that the Palestinian Arabs will have a capital in East Jerusalem.

In the end, Obama has simply backtracked to "let them handle it"--and by backtracking has shown the Arab world that Obama's support for Israel can be manipulated.

And Soren Dayton writes at RedState:

So let's make this very clear. Under pressure from Palestinians and terrorists, Obama caves on perhaps Israel's most fundamental issue. Not a good sign for those meetings with Ahmadinejad.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Obama.