The Middle East Media Sampler 9/7/2012 Democratic Platform Reflects Obama's True Jerusalem Policy

From DG:

1) Platform diving

Ed Lasky writes that President Obama knew that there was no mention of Jerusalem and still approved the publication of the platform like that.

It was only when blowback occurred that could hurt his political prospects that he stepped forward and inserted the language to assuage critics. 

Furthermore Lasky writes (in agreement with what Shmuel Rosner wrote) that it was likely Robert Wexler who contributed the language about the Middle East.

Rick Richman showed that the administration has a history with Jerusalem:

Obama Thinks Jerusalem Is Israel's Capital? State Department Didn't Get The Memo!

So what does Obama think about Jerusalem?

A brief recap:

• "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."
  Candidate Candidate Obama, June 2008
  
  
• "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"
  Candidate Obama, backtracking on Jerusalem, next day.

Barry Rubin On How The US Can Recognize Jerusalem As Israel's Capital -- And Still Leave It As A Final Status Issue

How the U.S. Government Should Deal With the Jerusalem As Israel's Capital Issue

by Barry Rubin

Recently there has been a controversy when State Department spokespeople refused to say what they thought to be Israel’s capital. To understand this issue we need to understand that there are two different issues involved: that of 1947 and that of 1967.

I’m not going to discuss ancient history, religious factors, and the merits of varying claims here but will merely point out some simple facts of practical diplomacy.

The U.S. embassy, like others, is located in Tel Aviv. When diplomats need to meet with Israeli officials they pile into their vans and drive up to Jerusalem. There are also restrictions on just where these diplomats can go and under what conditions, to avoid any implication that they recognize Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights or east Jerusalem.

Presidents have repeatedly promised to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem but have never made the tiniest move toward doing so because that would make Muslims and Arabs angry. In his speeches to AIPAC, President Barack Obama has said—to thunderous applause—that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel and should remain undivided. But of course this was a totally cynical gesture.

One could—as Obama no doubt hoped his audience would do—interpret this as favoring Israeli sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. Under that interpretation, Obama was taking a position on the “final status” negotiations. What Obama probably really meant is that after a two-state solution is implemented there should be no wall or closed border within Jerusalem. (That’s a nice idea though how it would be implemented is a puzzler.)

Why Does Obama Administration Exaggerate The Issue Of Jerusalem?

We are all familiar with the issue the predates the Obama administration about where the US embassy should be located: Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.

But that does not explain the embarrassing inability of the Obama administration to address head-on the issue of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

As Elliott Abrams points out, there is no reason--historically or politically--for Obama not to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Videos: Obama Administration Doesn't Like Talking About Jerusalem Any More

These days, the Obama administration really does not like talking about the "J" word.

Just yesterday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney wants to avoid talking about Jerusalem in the worst way:

HIllary Clinton Is Visiting Israel, But Doesn't Dare Say WHERE In Israel

And Obama has been backpedaling ever since.

Now, Rick Richman makes a great point that on Hillary Clinton's announced trip to Israel this month, they cannot say where Clinton is going.

The problem that Clinton will have in talking about her trip to Israel was illustrated yesterday during the State Department press conference, when a reporter asked Director Patrick Ventrell what should have been a simple straightforward question: