Mere hours after becoming Israel's new ‘best friend’ Obama backtracks on status of Jerusalem

In the spirit of pretending to be balanced about Barack Obama, I present the below article, brought to my attention this morning by a thoughtful patron of the Corner Deli whose suspicions of Mr. Obama and, undoubtedly of all politicians, runs quite deep.

Like I've said in the past, it's going to be Israel that takes care of Israel. If Jerusalem is on the table, it will be because Israel wants it to be, not because Obama or any American is going to force it. But these are nuances that would not have played well to that audience. He should have said nothing about settlements and nothing about Jerusalem, and left it with the general notion that Israel will have US support for whatever the parties want to do. I agree that this does not look good -- on first blush, it isn't. But I am curious: who vetted that speech? It was distributed widely for publication. But the big and realistic picture isn't that bad. And let us not lose the forest for the trees. The bottom line is that nobody is going to force Israel to do anything. Obama's Israel adviser is the former Ambassador to Israel who we have to presume knows the realities of what is and is not likely to happen in reality.

Regardless of this, the old way of doing business is not working and the discussion has to change. If Bush would have adopted a different approach and not forced elections with a terrorist group on the ballot, there's no doubt that Hamas would not be in control of the Gaza Strip. He forced Israel to do things that it didn't want to do, and the weak Israeli government acceded to it. I think that there would be a different response today from Israel given its experience with Gaza and the US' descendancy of its own power in the region.

Randy Shiner





Mere hours after becoming Israel's new ‘best friend’ Obama backtracks on status of Jerusalem

By Binyamin L. Jolkovsky






Original 'misunderstood' statements contradicted campaign policy


www.JewishWorldReview.com | Democratic presumptive presidential nominee Barak Obama stood before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee parley Wednesday morning and declared his complete, unqualified support for a Jewish Jerusalem. The Holy City, he said, "will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."


The move was an attempt to score points with many in the Jewish and evangelical communities who, given Obama's past political relationships with terrorist sympathizers, racists, and other undesirables, have been weary of how, as president, he would treat the Jewish State.


The rousing applause from the audience, including some of the most powerful politicians in America, was immediate.


Almost as immediate, though, was Hamas' condemnation. Leaders of the terrorist group had previously endorsed Obama as their choice for America's Commander in Chief.


Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said he "totally rejected" Obama's Jerusalem pronouncement.


"The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state," he added.

IN HIS OWN WORDS

To read Obama's speech in its entirety, please click HERE.


What a difference a day makes.


On Thursday, when queried by CNN, Obama said he was misunderstood.


"Well," Obama explained, "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."


Despite telling the AIPCAC conference what it wanted to hear and believe, an undivided Jerusalem was, in fact, never his campaign's position.


Obama's adviser for the Middle East, former Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer, in May told the Israeli mass circulation daily, Haaretz, that his campaign considers it "impossible to make progress on serious peace talks without putting the future of Jerusalem on the table."


In the Democratic primaries, 53 percent of Jewish voters chose Hillary Clinton compared to 45% who chose Obama.