Depends on What the Meaning of "Undivided" Is

Looks like Obama's not as unreasonable on the final status of Jerusalem as he tried to imply when talking to AIPAC:

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama did not rule out Palestinian sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem when he called for Israel's capital to remain "undivided," his campaign told The Jerusalem Post Thursday. [...]

"Two principles should apply to any outcome," which the adviser gave as: "Jerusalem remains Israel's capital and it's not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967."

He refused, however, to rule out other configurations, such as the city also serving as the capital of a Palestinian state or Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods. [...]

"The Orthodox Union is extremely disappointed in this revision of Senator Obama's important statement about Jerusalem," said Nathan Diament, director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. He had sent out a release Wednesday applauding Obama's Jerusalem remarks in front of AIPAC.

It's never really been clear to me if the AIPAC, Union or Orthodox Jewish Congregations, etc. crowd really means what they're saying about this. If they had an otherwise solid deal that they felt would ensure Israeli peace and security while removing the stain of occupation from the country but it required them to give up the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, would Nathan Diament really be so crazy as to see that as the deal-breaker?

Meanwhile, for Obama this seems much worse than simply going to AIPAC and saying something more honest.

Comments

Yeah -- one of the appealing things about Obama was his willingness to point out that some established politial pandering is just stupid. The gas tax. The Cuba emargo.

And people like him better for it, because we know the panders are stupid. And the people being pandered to know they are being lied to.

As my good friend Jeffrey Goldberg noted on his blog, Obama should have been a little less "orthodox" in his AIPAc speech.

For example, he could have admitted that the American embassy is not moving from Tel Aviv to
Jerusalem until there is a peace deal. Everyone knows that is true, and not making the stupid pander would have been consistent with Obama's image of 'new politics'.

That AIPAC speech was just stupid old politics. Oh well -- if nothing else, I hope the pander worked.

Posted by ikram | June 6, 2008 9:59 AM

I am an Israeli. First of all, I agree with your points, especially the last sentence.
Today, the city is divided de-facto, and most Israelis acknowledged just that in a recent poll.
Also, the Jewish demographics in Jerusalem are tilting towards haredi (that is, non-Zionist).
The ideal solution would be having the city hold the two capitals. Now, the realities on the ground are kind of daunting. The dividing line, especially within the walled city, would be the mother of all gerrymanders, and so some kind of non-divisive solution should be aimed for, like what they have in India where the same city (Chandigarh) serves as the capital of two states.
That requires flexibility and a lot of good will. Given that Hamas is always only an election away from taking power, and given Hamas's record of peaceful coexistence with the Jewish residents of Israel proper (as opposed to settlers in the territories), that is unlikely.
And there are no kind words for the hard-line Zionist-Israeli settler line, which will not go down without a fight that will not stop at anything: many there see the land as more important than the viability of the state, democracy, etc.

Posted by Alex | June 6, 2008 10:03 AM

Re Alex

Settlements today, settlements tomorrow, settlements to the far horizon.

Posted by SLC | June 6, 2008 10:09 AM

I'm not sure how it was dishonest for Obama to use the word "undivided" when it's the same word the Democratic Party has traditionally used, when it's the same word he's used in the past, and when it was Bill Clinton who made the word a goal of U.S. policy -- all meaning exactly what Obama meant it to mean in 2008.

Posted by jbryan | June 6, 2008 10:13 AM

One thing I like about Obama is that he is willing to point out some home truths that are considered to be "gaffes" in the current US political consideration, but to do so very politely. But this incident points out the limits of this approach.

Did Obama really have to go to AIPAC at all? If he spoke at, say, the Palestinian-American Political Action Committee there would be all sorts of complaints about his attendance. But AIPAC is promoting the agenda of a far right political party in a foreign country in the US. Speaking before it should be somewhat suspect. Imagine a politician going before an Armenian lobbying group, to make all sorts of statements about US foreign policy in regards to Turkey and the Caucasus. Or to a Greek Cypriot group to make a speech about the partition of Cyprus.

On the Jerusalem issue, I would prefer some sort of formulation along the lines that it is up to the Israelis to decide where they want their capital. It basically supports the Israeli condition without the appearance of pandering, and allows for a time when the Israelis themselves might agree on a new status for Jerusalem, as part of a broader settlement.

Posted by Ed | June 6, 2008 10:16 AM

would Nathan Diament really be so crazy as to see that as the deal-breaker?

Somebody would.

YOU may not care, but some people want the whole wad, Temple and all.

max
['God-given rights and all that.']

Posted by max | June 6, 2008 10:26 AM

What I like about SLC is his frank embrace of historic racist rhetoric. That's far preferable to people who have the same policies but pretend they're not vicious bigots.

Posted by 23456 | June 6, 2008 10:31 AM

Any candidate is going to have to genuflect in the direction of Tel Aviv. It's a rite of the political campaign. Obama is no different than anyone else. The last thing he needs during the general campaign is five months of being attacked for "wanting to give Israel back to the terrorists," followed by serious "news analysis" by major papers questioning just how loyal he is to Israel.

What he does as president doesn't necessarily have any connection to what he does as a candidate.

Posted by Helter | June 6, 2008 10:34 AM

God what a dumbass. Did he think this would actually work as a hedge or did someone tell him afterwards that demanding an undivided Jerusalem was a bad idea?

Posted by q | June 6, 2008 10:43 AM

Of course, part of the issue with "dividing Jerusalem" is what gets divided. Hard-line elements fan the flames of fear about dividing Jerusalem so that Americans, who think of Jerusalem as urbane, West Jerusalem and the Old City fear a Berlin-style fence between the two.

But, like many cities, Jerusalem has some more suburban parts within the city limits. Imagine, for example, that New Jersey claimed New York City as its capital and at some point New Jersey occupied lower Manhattan (old New York) and Staten Island but then New York reoccupied all of NYC.

New Yorkers would be just in being afraid that any solution to these hypothetical border wars between NY and NJ should not divide "the city" ... to the extent that "the city" refers to Manhattan. And a lot of heat could be generated by hardliners fanning the flames about "dividing the city" referring to keeping all of NYC in NY but having people have the image of a divided Manhattan.

OTOH, no offense to Staten Island, but would any New Yorker really miss Staten Island? Would there really be an objection to a division of NYC that leaves NJ with Staten Island?

Posted by DAS | June 6, 2008 10:44 AM

For the sake of discussion:
1. The current gov't of Israel is willing to make concessions, but is very weak.
2. Netanyahu may be prime minister again before Obama's inauguration.
3. In the face of the previous point, most Israelis acknowledge the need for concessions, and many in Israel are saying with characteristic brutal honesty that some of what is happening amounts to talks with Hamas. As of June 6 those seem to have collapsed, and Israel is poised to conduct a military operation. It will be interesting to hear both candidates comment in real time.
4. The military operation above will have blanket support from Israelis of all stripes, because the attacks on Israeli civilians from Gaza cannot be accepted as a fact of life, and any country would defend itself from people lobbying mortars at them, even if primitive and mostly ineffective.
5. My earlier distinguishing between Hamas's "peaceful coexistence with the Jewish residents of Israel proper" vis-a-vis the territories was ironic, for those who may have read it at face value. Basically, Hamas is not a stranger to the business of deliberately killing Israeli civilians, and is somehow in the belief that bombings advance their cause.
6. You won't find a lot of Israelis more anti-settlement than yours truly.

Posted by Alex again | June 6, 2008 10:46 AM

In other words, Barack Obama lied to AIPAC.

All this shows is that Obama is a serial panderer - willing to say anything to an audience to make them like him. It's just like the NAFTA question back in Ohio, when Obama told people he was looking to revisit NAFTA, and we later found out via Austan Goolsbee that Obama was simply lying to dupe those stupid Ohioans.

Vote for Obama - he's a liar!

Posted by Al | June 6, 2008 10:48 AM

If they had an otherwise solid deal that they felt would ensure Israeli peace and security while removing the stain of occupation from the country but it required them to give up the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, would Nathan Diament really be so crazy as to see that as the deal-breaker?

Yes.

Posted by brooksfoe | June 6, 2008 10:54 AM

There is a long history of diplomatic proposals, going back at least to 1992, but probably earlier, and coming from both sides, proposing some version of the notion of a single "undivided" city serving jointly as the capital of two different states. Some call for the city to be internationalized. Most propose some sort of system of divided "control", "sovereignty" or whatever over different parts of the city, but without any internal physical barriers or borders, and with a requirement that the city remain "open". Some of them declare that "Jerusalem" means only the walled old city.

Obviously, there is a lot of diplomatic and semantic legerdemain going on here. But equally obviously, we know that any plausible peace proposal is going to have to engage in this imaginative stretching of conventional terms in order to be acceptable to both sides. The Taba provisions, for example, are often said to have provided for an "undivided Jerusalem", despite the fact that they assigned divided sovereignty over neighborhoods.

Posted by Dan Kervick | June 6, 2008 10:56 AM

I'm shocked, SHOCKED to hear that a Democratic candidate is pandering to AIPAC!

In other news, dog bites man. Film at 11.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | June 6, 2008 10:58 AM

While it's a good idea to tell some hard truths to auto executives in Detroit about global warming or to the exile community in Miami about our Cuba policy it's NOT a good idea to lay out clear unambiguous terms when you are going to help mediate a dispute. The fact that leaders in BOTH Israel and the Palestinian territory are now mad at Obama seems like a very good thing. I think what Obama is doing is called 'being diplomatic'. It's appropriate when discussing a dipute between two nations, neither of which is your own.

Posted by joejoejoe | June 6, 2008 11:19 AM

Obama must have gotten some pointers from Pelosi on how to suck up to AIPAC.

AIPAC is a perfect example of how a small group of people can dictate policy by virtue of "campaign contributions" and a free pass from the media.

Posted by kafka | June 6, 2008 11:28 AM

This is exactly as I said; Obama was making reassuring noises that he wouldn't put an Israeli government under pressure to accept a partition that they were unhappy with. There was no other way of interpreting his remarks (unless you are a wingnut).

Posted by Chris Dornan | June 6, 2008 11:50 AM

Go on, SLC, tell an Israeli that he's an anti-Semite in your usual spasmodic way. See if you can pull out some ad hominem shit against him. Out yourself as the white-supremacist fuck you are.

And the best way to parse Obama's statement is to say that it's about the abstract concept of Jerusalem ('Schmerusalem') within the abstract concept of Israel ('Schmisrael'), as used by AIPAC and other American 'friend of Israel' or 'pro-Israel' groups. Except that ASPAC would sound rude.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 6, 2008 12:11 PM

Obama must have gotten some pointers from Pelosi on how to suck up to AIPAC.
AIPAC is a perfect example of how a small group of people can dictate policy by virtue of "campaign contributions" and a free pass from the media.
Posted by kafka | June 6, 2008 11:28 AM

It goes well beyond that now.
In a weird way, Osama Bin Laden ligitimized AIPAC's stance. Until the global jihad is disavowd by a near unanimity of the ulemma and ummah, America is not going to drop its only ally in the region. And as anyone who has read the litterature knows, the islamist project is not first and formost about Palestine.

Posted by Northern Observer | June 6, 2008 12:18 PM

At least the Daily Show showed how stupid these AIPAC events are in the first place and hammered the candidates on them.

Posted by Reality Man | June 6, 2008 12:21 PM

Re pseudonymous in nc

Just for the information of fucktard Mr. pseudonymous, Mr. Alex isn't an antisemite. He's just naive.

Posted by SLC | June 6, 2008 12:44 PM

joejoejow has it spot on I think. Clearly those that thought Obama was guaranteeing to obstruct any Palestinian or Israeli moves at reconciliation on Jerusalem will be disappointed, and liberals will be relieved. Will this harm him? Maybe not. It turns out that his position is so very reasonable when explained, and he is getting lots of opportunity to explain it, and it is one that almost everyone understood to be the case anyway, and he has dominated the AIPAC conference.

Posted by Chris Dornan | June 6, 2008 1:24 PM

Serial pandering, sure, and plenty disappointing.

BHO may be very good, but he's mortal after all. Still, I wish he'd be more careful on this kind of thing, since it allows the mushheads at McCain HQ/Golf Shop to say, "well, we all get a little carried away, mr friendsss, even my good friend and young opponent Senator Oaama."

Posted by Jim Pharo | June 6, 2008 1:26 PM

"Just for the information of fucktard Mr. pseudonymous, Mr. Alex isn't an antisemite. He's just naive.

Posted by SLC | June 6, 2008 12:44 PM"

HAHAHAHA! Go ahead, go and tell actual Israelis how great the settlements are. Tell them how the treasonous assholes who live in them are great Israelis who are doing the right thing. Tell them how you have stated how you actually dislike actual Israelis. Your religious fundamentalist pipe dream is the naive view, especially in the face of the high rate of Palestinian births. Your lack of self-awareness is outstanding.

Posted by Reality Man | June 6, 2008 1:32 PM

Re Reality Man

It's pretty tough being a religious fundamentalist when one is and atheist but I'll give it my best shot.

Posted by SLC | June 6, 2008 1:51 PM

this is just plain silly, and accsuations of 'dishonesty' against Obama are unsupported by these statements. what isn't honest about what he said? jeez, lets not do the wingnuts' work for them here!

Posted by onceler | June 6, 2008 2:38 PM

Just in case anybody is still following SLC v. Alex:
Naive I am not. I've done my share of stuff for Israel and I do know what I talk about.
This does not necessarily bear on the correctness or naive-ness of my words, but there you go.
Actually, these ideas I've been having since the late 1980s (Israel should go back to the 1967 borders and there should be a Palestinian state) were marginal back then: Ratz had 3 mandates in the Knesset, Mapam and Sheli about the same, and Labor was not there yet before Oslo, and even after. Yet, the years went by and said ideas are currently accepted by a majority of Israelis, including a significant percentage of Likud voters and voters for Likud satellites such as Shas (humor me here, and accept the shorthand that Shas is effectively a Likud satellite when it comes to territorial concessions).

Posted by Alex yet again | June 6, 2008 2:50 PM

Actually, let's just call white-supremacist parody troll SLC an ASPACker in future.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 6, 2008 4:03 PM

Give Jerusalem to the UN! World Free City! Open to All!

I am quite happy with pissing off both the Jews and Muslims in this matter. You know what? You have both proved you are not adult enough to settle this question so now you both get nothing.

Posted by MNPundit | June 6, 2008 4:59 PM

"If they had an otherwise solid deal that they felt would ensure Israeli peace and security while removing the stain of occupation from the country but it required them to give up the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, would Nathan Diament really be so crazy as to see that as the deal-breaker?"

In other words, "Is Nathan Diament really so crazy that he has different priorities than I think he should?" I'm always astonished at formulations like this. If Jerusalem is really valueless, why aren't the Palestinians equally insane for not conceding on this one issue? Or so on, for any other issue - on either side?

Matt, neither Diament nor the Palestinians are insane. They just think that certain things are more important than you do, particularly when their religious convictions confer significant value on portions of Jerusalem (like the Temple Mount for Jews) that have traditionally not been under their faction's control. If you value those issues highly enough, you're not willing to compromise on them.

You can disagree with their priorities, but calling them stupid for having them makes you look like an idiot.

Posted by Geoffb | June 6, 2008 5:04 PM

If you had been paying any attention at all to the discussion when this came up in the HRC context, you wouldn't be surprised to learn that "divided" means such different things to different people that it's nearly meaningless.

Posted by rilkefan | June 6, 2008 8:06 PM

Give Jerusalem to the UN! World Free City! Open to All!

The majority of Jerusalemites are non-zionist. I don't know about the U.N. but you add together the ultra-religious Jews and the Arabs and you could win a referendum on becoming an independent, international, holy city.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 6, 2008 8:11 PM

Agree that this whole "undivided capital" brouhaha was easily avoidable by adding a couple of words to his AIPAC speech. An unforced error.

Posted by Byron | June 6, 2008 8:14 PM

"The Orthodox Union is extremely disappointed in this revision of Senator Obama's important statement about Jerusalem,"

Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke. In fact, fuck 'em if they can.

SLC isn't a "religious fundamentalist" - he's an imperialist, racist pig fundamentalist.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 7, 2008 5:59 AM

Re Richard Steven Hack

And Mr. Hack is slime of the bottom of the cesspool.

Posted by SLC | June 7, 2008 8:21 AM

Re: Give Jerusalem to the UN! World Free City! Open to All!

Perhaps we could give Jerusalem back to Spain- if I recall correctly they still have legal title to Palestine dating back to the Crusades, and one of Juan Carlos' honorifics is 'King of Jerusalem'. Russia, France, Cyprus, the Vatican, and Malta may also have arguable legal claims to the city.

(I'm not serious of course.)

Posted by Hector | June 7, 2008 1:50 PM