Obama's About Face on Undivided Jerusalem Complete

Rick Moran
At the American-Israeli Public Affairs Conference (AIPAC) meeting last month in Washington, Barack Obama said he supported the idea of Jerusalem as Israel's "undivided capitol."

That was then. This is now.

After pandering shamelessly to the Jewish vote, Obama has done a complete about face and now says that there was "poor phrasing" in that speech and that his campaign "immediately tried to correct the interpretation that was given."

His position today is
quite different:

"The point we were simply making was that we don't want barbed wire running through Jerusalem, similar to the way it was prior to the '67 war, that it is possible for us to create a Jerusalem that is cohesive and coherent. I was not trying to predetermine what are essentially final-status issues."



This is a common Obama ploy when he flip flops; blame the "interpretation" of what he said for the problem not the words he spoke. The fact that he keeps getting away with this is maddening but something I suppose we should get used to.

At this point, he couldn't be clearer. He has placed the status of Jerusalem in the context of negotiations with the Palestinians. This is all fine and dandy but there is little doubt that his position on an undivided Jerusalem will resonate with many Jews.

And it is that they will remember - not the flip flop.

At the American-Israeli Public Affairs Conference (AIPAC) meeting last month in Washington, Barack Obama said he supported the idea of Jerusalem as Israel's "undivided capitol."

That was then. This is now.

After pandering shamelessly to the Jewish vote, Obama has done a complete about face and now says that there was "poor phrasing" in that speech and that his campaign "immediately tried to correct the interpretation that was given."

His position today is
quite different:

"The point we were simply making was that we don't want barbed wire running through Jerusalem, similar to the way it was prior to the '67 war, that it is possible for us to create a Jerusalem that is cohesive and coherent. I was not trying to predetermine what are essentially final-status issues."



This is a common Obama ploy when he flip flops; blame the "interpretation" of what he said for the problem not the words he spoke. The fact that he keeps getting away with this is maddening but something I suppose we should get used to.

At this point, he couldn't be clearer. He has placed the status of Jerusalem in the context of negotiations with the Palestinians. This is all fine and dandy but there is little doubt that his position on an undivided Jerusalem will resonate with many Jews.

And it is that they will remember - not the flip flop.