"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided"
Candidate Obama to AIPAC, 2008
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."
Washington Post, June 5, 2008
Of course, it was in defense of his backtrack on Jerusalem that Obama established the paradigm of how he assuages Jewish concerns:
Asked for comment, the Obama campaign put a reporter in immediate contact with Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla. -- an Orthodox Jew, a strong supporter of Israel and Obama's point man on many of these issues -- who told ABC News, "that is not backtracking."Here we see the beginnings of Obama's strategy of having Jewish surrogates come out and explain that Obama didn't say what we heard him say--we also see a preview on how Obama claims that what he is saying is no different from what previous administrations have said.
"His position has been the same for the past 16 months," Wexler said. "He believes Jerusalem should be an undivided city and must be the capital of a Jewish state of Israel. He has also said -- and it's the same position as President Bush, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Prime Minister Ehud Ohlmert -- that Jerusalem is of course a 'final status' issue," meaning it would be one of the key and final points of negotiation for a Palestinian state. "And Sen. Obama as president would not dictate final status issues. He will permit the Palestinians and Israel to negotiate, and he would respect any conclusion they reach."
Foreign Policy, Did Obama Backtrack on Jerusalem?, June 6, 2008
Although in that case, in the face Wexler's oddly contradictory defense, some were more critical than others. The above post continues:
ABC's Jake Tapper concludes, "The record seems to back Wexler's argument that Obama has said both that Jerusalem should be Israel's undivided capital, and that its status is ultimately up to Israel." (Which is different, I would note, than saying its status should be up to both parties.)Still, that defense was better than hearing Daniel Kurtzer claiming that 'undivided' when applied to Jerusalem had a special meaning:
Daniel Kurtzer, who advises Obama on the Middle East, said Tuesday at the Israel Policy Forum that Obama's comment stemmed from "a picture in his mind of Jerusalem before 1967 with barbed wires and minefields and demilitarized zones."In any case, now that he is running for re-election, we see Obama's defense strategy on his position on Israel again being applied:
"So he used a word to represent what he did not want to see again, and then realized afterwards that that word is a code word in the Middle East," Kurtzer said.
Obama’s top presidential campaign advisers are putting together a plan to go on the offensive against critics of his stance on Israel, I’m told, and are assembling a team of high profile surrogates who are well respected in the Jewish community to battle criticism in the media and ensure that it doesn’t go unanswered.At least the first time around, we were not told that we had misunderstood Obama, or that the Republicans were twisting his words.
The fact remains though, is that we know what Obama said--and it is not the same as what others have said.
Jennifer Rubin notes Obama's claim that he is merely following in the footsteps of previous administrations on the 1967 lines simply does not hold water:
Moreover, although the White House insists that, by including the words “with land swaps” when speaking about the 1967 borders, that Obama has said nothing extraordinary, the issue has never been whether Obama has told Israel that it must return to the 1967 borders. Rather, the problem is the administration’s unprecedented adoption of the 1967 borders as the basis for negotiations. Obama’s insistence on restarting negotiations by putting Israel in this untenable position makes the Jewish state negotiate for every scrap (e.g. the Western Wall) beyond the indefensible 1967 borders while making no demand whatsoever of the Palestinians. He’s badly undercut Israel’s bargaining position, and informed, honest friends of Israel understand this.We are in for all kinds of claims Jewish surrogates Obama trying to convince us to ignore what Obama has actually said.
But it is nothing we have not had to put up with before.
Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama.
13 comments:
The author of daled amos has not understood the Obama quotes and his aide's follow up remarks as evident by his remarks on them. The only critical remark that we can lay on Obama is that his words were taken correctly by us which made us happy but which, the way we correctly understood them, were a contradiction to his many years of his own glatt position that the parties had to work it out. Who in fact messed up the wording, him or Axelrod ( Rahm might not have bene there at that point) or another Jewish advisor, is unknown to us.
More importantly, why is the author of daled amos bringing this up- it is a 2008 capaign event, but nothing more. As I said, he has been glatt kosher that the final status issues are up to the parties.
The best thing Obama could do is expose AIPAC ,and its stranglehold on Congress, to the American people. Put the Israeli lobby groups on the defencive.
Jennifer Rubin is the biggest liar and considered a joke at the Washington Post which is why they gave her a blog writing allowance only ( which she doesnt get paid for)
J rubin wrote in her blog in June "Mr. Obama called for utilizing Israel’s borders before the 1967 Six-Day War as the base line for new talks, while recognizing the need for some territorial adjustments — a plan Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has rejected."
She is a liar. I wonder if she goes to sleep and dreams it up and then writes it down when she awakens.
Reality: Netanyahu said he agreed with Obama in front of Congress.
Netanyahu said (in his Congress speech) “The status of the settlements will be decided in negotiations. But we must also be honest. So I am saying today something that should be said publicly by anyone serious about peace. In any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders. The precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated. We will be very generous on the size of a future Palestinian state. But as President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible lines of 1967.”
This is exactly the same as Obama and GW Bush and Bill Clinton and Olmert and Livni and Ehud Barack.
President George W Bush said on May 26, 2005 in the Rose Garden in a huge U.S. policy press conference , “ “Any Final Status Agreement Must Be Reached Between The Two Parties, And Changes To The 1949 Armistice Lines Must Be Mutually Agreed To.”
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050526.html
GW Bush could not have been more forceful in laying down formal U.S. policy than by using the expression “ This is the position of the United States today; it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.”
Arutz Sheva reported the fraud that the Ariel Sharon adminstration was propagandizing in lying about Bush's concessions as Sharon tried to gain acceptance of his Gaza Withdrawal.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/82861
signed
LeonardMoscowitz at gmail.com
( it wont let me log in)
his many years of his own glatt position
I don't think that 2 years counts as "many".
In any case, which are you saying is the correct understanding of Obama's words--that he wanted Jerusalem undivided or that he wanted Israel and the PA to negotiate?
Of course, if Obama's position was so clear, his aides would not sound so silly trying to 'clarify' them.
The best thing Obama could do is expose AIPAC ,and its stranglehold on Congress, to the American people. Put the Israeli lobby groups on the defencive
Gee, even after those 2 bastions of veracity and scholarship, Mearsheimer & Waltz?
Let's look past your self-defeating ad hominem attacks.
Norman Podhoretz wrote:
Then, in a letter he sent to Sharon on April 14, 2004, Bush went farther:
In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final-status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. . . . It is realistic to expect that any final-status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.
Translated into plain English, this meant that Israel would not be required to retreat all the way to the pre-’67 borders or to dismantle the major settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria.
True, Bush’s parallel insistence on a “contiguous” Palestinian state also meant that Israel would have to withdraw from the Jordan Valley. As Dore Gold of the Jerusalem Center for Policy Analysis never tired of demonstrating, to abandon this strategically vital piece of geography would leave Israel naked to attack on the ground. The demand was thus raised by Gold and others for “defensible borders,” which became code words for the retention by Israel of a military presence in the Jordan Valley.
Initially, the Bush administration did not look with favor upon this demand (“It’s not going to happen,” declared a White House official). But then, in his speech in Jerusalem on January 10 of this year, Bush signaled a change that has gone curiously unnoticed by friends of Israel:
These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent.
By adding for the first time the word “defensible” to the “secure and recognized borders” he had specified in his previous statements, Bush was for all practical purposes endorsing continued Israeli control over the Jordan Valley; and by reiterating that the Palestinian state must be “contiguous,” he was saying that, contrary to Palestinian objections, a way could be found to reconcile these two requirements.
----
The fact remains is that Obama starts with the 67 lines as a given and then leaves it to the 2 sides to negotiate on compromises.
Quick, pop quiz: name 3 compromises Abbas has made in negotiations.
How about 2?
How about any?
In any case, Obama's formulation gives enormous power to Abbas and is a recipe for failed talks again.
But then again, we have already seen how good Obama has been in undermining them.
Daled Amos said
"Let's look past your self-defeating ad hominem attacks."
Daled Amos gets it wrong again. The 2004 letter is exactly more of the same and is swallowed up neatly in the 2005 policy speech of Bush. I didn't employ a self defeating anything. But I will briefly refer for the second time to the points I already made above.
LeonardMoscowitz at gmail.com
I correctly quoted GW and Obama as having the exact same negotiation policy.
Furthermore I correctly pointed out that Netanyahu actually referred to and agreed with Obama that "the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.”
Furthermore I pointed out that GW Bush's 2005 policy pronouncement is simply a repeat of what negotiations were like before and after the 2004 infamous Bush letter- both under GW Bush and Clinton. The 2004 Bush letter speaks of realities on the ground, and those have been the subject of the negotiations prior to the 2004 letter since the 2004 letter.
No differences.
Furthermore I left out a quote that is superfluous , but here it is, from Jay Carney the President's spokesman just after the Obama/ Netanyahu meeting at the White House on Friday May 20 when asked by a reporter about the 2004 letter; Jay Carney responded ( at whitehouse.gov) "Again, there is nothing that the President said yesterday that contradicts the 2004 letters that were exchanged between President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon, or what Prime Minister Netanyahu said today in the Oval Office. We -- the President said in his speech that a starting point for resolving the territorial issue is the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps and security for both nations. I think that's -- there’s nothing in that statement and the President’s speech yesterday that is contradicted by what the Prime Minister said."
Quite true.
Once again, it is all obvious for those aware of what actually has been happening and actually been said for 17 years- namely, Obama is simply plagiarizing Bush and getting nailed for it by Republicans and the Likud cooaltion supporters despite the fact that they didnt nail their Republican president GW Bush.
Furthermore, we saw in REALTIME that Bush worked every step of the way to negotiate the offer that Olmert and Bush made to Abbas- 100%of the West Bank mileage with the 6.8% of swaps of actual STATE of ISRAEL LAND. This generous offer was made by Olmert and Bush. This offer didnt happen overnight. To read Condi Rice's statements on the negotiations in the Jerusalem Post and the leaked Palestine Papers and other venues is really irrelevant now ever since we know what the Olmert Bush offer actually consisted of.
Obama is simply going through the motions, and the republicans are lying about it to the electorate. Nothing new about lying Republicans and their blogsters like Jennifer Rubin.
If Obama is following in Bush's footsteps, why did he and Clinton waste so much goodwill dismissing the 2004 letter?
(Part 2 from above)
Taking on the spirit of the roadmap and Bush’s 2005 Rose Garden, at Annapolis Bush and Condi reinvigorated things and after months of preparation Bush and partner Condi went full steam ahead when Annapolis was in the works:
Part of Transcript of Annapolis statement of President GW Bush 11/28/ 2007 :
“….Our purpose here in Annapolis is not to conclude an agreement. Rather, it is to launch negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. …
“….The emergence of responsible Palestinian leaders has given Israeli leaders the confidence they need to reach out to the Palestinians in true partnership. Prime Minister Olmert has expressed his understanding of the suffering and indignities felt by the Palestinian people. He's made clear that the security of Israel will be enhanced by the establishment of a responsible, democratic Palestinian state.“….
“ ….The Israelis must do their part. They must show the world that they are ready to begin - to bring an end to the occupation that began in 1967 through a negotiated settlement. This settlement will establish Palestine as a Palestinian homeland, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. Israel must demonstrate its support for the creation of a prosperous and successful Palestinian state by removing unauthorized outposts, ending settlement expansion, and finding other ways for the Palestinian Authority to exercise its responsibilities without compromising Israel's security. “
Condi then took the lead in the day to day negotiations with both parties ( you can see thousands of pages of her negotiations in the leaked Wiki-like Palestinian Papers, but I will keep to the Jpost quotes.)
(not enough posting room allowed so see next posted comment
entitled PART 3 )
signed Leonard Moscowitz at gmail.com
PART 3 continued from above (signed by Leonard Moscowitz)
Condi then took the lead in the day to day negotiations with the parties ( you can see thousands of pages of her negotiations in the leaked Wiki-like Palestinian Papers, but I will keep to the Jpost quotes.)
Jerusalem Post Rice: US entirely opposed to Har Homa HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, HERB KEINON AND KHALED ABU TOAMEH 01/08/2008 08:39
"Rice tells 'Post' Israel must honor Road Map commitments; President Bush en route to Israel." January 8, 2008:
http://newstopics.jpost.com/topic/George_W._Bush ( link moved)
[Regarding Bush's 2004 letter written in response to the Ariel Sharon Disengagement from Gaza...]…”Rice described the letter as “the president’s acknowledgement that these changes have taken place and have to be accommodated. This president also said it needs to be mutually agreed [upon]. So the negotiation, the agreement itself, will finally resolve these issues, and we can stop having the discussion about what’s a settlement and what isn’t.”
" US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice placed the issue of settlement activity in the West Bank and east Jerusalem at center stage, telling The Jerusalem Post that "Har Homa is a settlement the United States has opposed from the very beginning." Rice, who was accompanying Bush en route to Israel overnight Tuesday, said that "the United States doesn't make a distinction" between settlement activity in east Jerusalem and the West Bank and that Israel's road map obligations, which include a building freeze, relate to "settlement activity generally."
Rice's comments underlined that the settlement issue will be high on the agenda of the talks between Bush and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert…..
“….Rice, with her comments, went further than US officials have previously gone toward clarifying the US position on east Jerusalem. Her comments not only seemed to set the stage for a confrontation over the issue during the Bush meetings, but also stood in sharp contrast to what Olmert has said he believes is the US position on the matter. Olmert, in an interview with the Post last week, said that when Bush thought of an overall Israel-Palestinian agreement, he had in mind an accord based on the 1967 borders "plus."
"....Nevertheless, senior diplomatic officials said that they did not see much new in Rice's position, and that the US has consistently opposed all construction beyond the Green Line, including inside Jerusalem.
"....While referring to Har Homa as a "settlement," Rice, when asked, didn't clarify whether other Jerusalem neighborhoods over the Green Line, such as Gilo and Ramot, were also settlements in the eyes of the United States. "The important point here is that one reason that we need to have an agreement is so that we can stop having this discussion about what belongs to Israel and what doesn't," she said. Rice gave an interview to the Post and Ynet on Monday ahead of her departure for Israel. Rice described the letter as "the president's acknowledgement that these changes have taken place and have to be accommodated. This president also said it needs to be mutually agreed [upon]. So the negotiation, the agreement itself, will finally resolve these issues, and we can stop having the discussion about what's a settlement and what isn't." Rice's comments point to the longtime ambiguity in the US position toward construction in these neighborhoods, which is opposed by the Palestinians and the European Union. Traditionally the United States has refrained from describing Jerusalem neighborhoods as "settlements," but the Bush administration has been particularly critical of recently-announced building tenders in Har Homa.
I do not agree with the way you write off Obama's dismissal of the 2004 letter.
Israpundit writes:
So why did Obama repudiate the Bush letter which his man, Sen Mitchell had two months earlier endorsed in his name?
There are two, and possibly three, major departures from the Bush letter. Bush had written that Israel must have secure and recognized borders in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338 leaving open the possibility that Res 242 did not require retreat from all territories. Clinton made no mention of 242 and said the borders must be based on the 1967 lines. This suggests that all the land is to be ceded, facilitated by mutually agreed swaps.
Whereas Bush had written �and the settling of Palestinian refugees there [Palestine], rather than in Israel, Clinton was silent. Is this also a departure? I think so. Obama is clearly trying to stay as close to the Saudi Plan as he can. It requires the settlement of the refugee issue pursuant to UNGA Res 194.
In the scheme of things these differences are of little importance. Why take the heat for so little profit? Especially when Bush had said doing otherwise was unrealistic
Perhaps there was another reason.
Bush had committed in said letter that the United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan.
By challenging the whole letter in the first instance and endorsing most of it subsequently, save for this commitment, Obama has succeeded in ridding himself of the commitment. Is Obama thereby reserving the right to impose a plan as many in his administration recommend he do.
In case you haven't noticed, either Obama, nor his administration, refer to the Roadmap. That is because the Roadmap precludes an imposed solution.
Elliot Abrams also sees a difference:
ABRAMS SAID there was a significant difference between what appeared in the Bush letter and Obama’s comment that negotiations ought to start now on the basis of the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps.
“When Obama says you need to agree on a border, and that it will be based on 1967 lines with agreed swaps, that undermines the Israeli negotiating position. By saying that, you are giving that border greater weight. You are not saying, ‘Hey, look, that was an armistice line from 1949 – it has no legitimacy, you guys have to negotiate a border.’ And then, when Obama added in the comment about mutually agreed swaps, my question is always, ‘Are you telling me Israel has to give up sovereign Green Line territory to keep the Kotel?’ That is ridiculous.”
Abrams said that while it was conceivable that Israel would agree to swaps, and that former prime minister Ehud Olmert had proposed one-to-one swaps for everything, “[it] is the sovereign right of Israel to make any deal it wants. But why should the US be weakening the Israeli negotiating position by even suggesting there have to be swaps for every deviation from the 1949 armistice line? It’s one thing to say there will be swaps for Ariel, another for the Kotel.”
He added that “Bush did Israel a favor by saying there would be no return to the 1949 lines, and I think you have to say that helped Israel, and didn’t help the Palestinians. I think the additional Obama formulation hurt Israel, and helped the Palestinians.”
elliot abrams is a war criminal. Why anyone wouldnt be embaraced to quote him is beyond me.
In any event, the quote of his is incompetent. It doesnt stay true to the comparison between Bush's statements and Obamas statements yet it is pretending that it is doing just that. Instead, Elliot abrams makes up fictional comments as though he is responding to what obama and bush actually said and did.
The reason you brought the quote was to make a distinction- that shows you arent absorbing the material of the Bush and Obama quotes. it shows you are playing into the incoherent spin of a war criminal.
signed leonardmoscowitz at gmail
Thank you.
I think that last comment of yours clears up everything.
Post a Comment