An editorial in the Washington Times notes that one of those problems is the implications of Obama's policy as it applies to Jerusalem:
On Sunday, he avoided mentioning Jerusalem at all, and last week he only said the city’s status was an “emotional and wrenching” issue that would only be resolved after the border issue was settled.This may be an error on Obama's part.
Mr. Obama needs a better map. The 1967 line cuts directly through Jerusalem, and the city’s status cannot be detached from the border issue. Before 1967, the Western Wall - where Mr. Obama mentioned he visited and prayed - was barred to Jews despite a provision in the 1949 armistice agreement that all be given access. Israel captured the eastern half of Jerusalem in the 1967 war and annexed it, but Palestinians still claim it as their capital. Although candidate Barack Obama strongly supported a united Jerusalem in 2008, President Obama’s administration denounced new construction in eastern Jerusalem as illegal settlement activity in 2009.
To say that a divided city is the starting point for negotiations concedes ground that no Israeli government will accept. There is no possible parcel to “swap” that either party will agree is as important as the Temple Mount. Muslims claim it is the third holiest site in Islam, but it is at the center of Jewish identity. Mr. Obama might as well suggest making Mecca an interfaith timeshare. [emphasis added]
Or maybe not.
Maybe Obama really is dead set on Jerusalem being a divided city:
In a waiver Clinton and Bush had signed concerning the delay in moving the American embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv, President Obama left out a statement of the previous waiver. It had stated that America “remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem.”Technorati Tag: Obama and Jerusalem and Israel.
Post a Comment