Obama on Jerusalem: Why the Fuss?

Barack Obama's speech to AIPAC on Wednesday was a hit. Contrary to predictions that the AIPAC crowd would receive Obama coldly, he was met with enthusiasm. A friend who was in the room said, "Obama was a huge hit. The college kids in particular went crazy. But all the people I saw seemed to want to be part of Obama's historic journey."

John McCain also scored with the AIPAC members. That is less newsworthy because McCain has not been the target of a vicious and libelous smear e-mail campaign within the Jewish community.

While the crowd inside the Washington Convention Center was pleased by Obama's speech, a lot of people outside the room were not. One phrase in particular was a turn-off for the critics. It was Obama's reference to Jerusalem as "the capital of Israel" which "must remain undivided." The statement was widely criticized as pandering, particularly by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post. Other critics said that Obama's position would doom Israeli-Palestinian negotiations because if the city is to remain undivided, there is nothing to negotiate about.

Pandering? Obviously Milbank has not attended very many speeches in which politicians really pander to a Jewish audience. If he had, he would know that panderers do not endorse the peace process and do not call for high-level US involvement to advance the two-state solution. Instead they routinely bash Palestinians as terrorists -- getting their audiences to their feet by using the "never again" mantra as justification for hanging on to the territories and, even more, the status quo.

That is not what Obama did. I don't believe he ever has. Nor, to its credit, did his audience hold back in its applause, waiting for the "red meat" that never came.

Times are changing.

Obama emphasized that he will make negotiations a priority. "We can and we should help Israelis and Palestinians both fulfill their national goals: two states living side by side in peace and security." He pointedly said that he would not wait seven years before becoming personally involved in advancing Israeli-Palestinian negotiations toward the two-state solution.

His determination to promote negotiations was unambiguous.

Nonetheless, Obama's critics insist that a President cannot advance negotiations while simultaneously pledging that Jerusalem must remain undivided.

I certainly hope that he can, because I do not believe that Jerusalem will ever again be physically divided. Nor do I believe that it should be. Perhaps I'm naïve but, for me, the idea of dividing cities and peoples in an effort to achieve peace is oxymoronic. Peace requires removing walls, not building new ones.

That is why I never liked the whole idea of unilateral disengagement. Disengagement failed because it was accomplished without negotiating with Palestinians or even consulting with them. It was as if the Palestinians didn't matter. They would take whatever Israel gave them.

It didn't work out that way. The Israelis pulled out and Hamas havoc followed. As many of us predicted, only a withdrawal negotiated with Mahmoud Abbas would have been likely to succeed. (It might even have prevented Hamas' rise to power.) One thing is certain, the results of a negotiated withdrawal could only be better than those of a unilateral withdrawal -- the onslaught against Sderot and the walling off of a million Palestinians.

Obama knows that Jerusalem is one of the "final status" issues on which Israelis and Palestinians must reach agreement if there is to be peace. He also knows, as everyone does, that without an agreement on Jerusalem, peace cannot be achieved.

But he understands that peace should not require the physical division of Jerusalem, but rather the sharing of it. That means, as President Clinton envisioned, that East Jerusalem would revert to Palestinian control while West Jerusalem would remain Israeli. Special arrangements would be made for the holy sites.

That can be done while maintaining the physical unity of the city, i.e., no walls. Yes, that will require ingenuity. But, even more, it requires will and imagination.

There are those who argue that it is unrealistic to expect Israelis and Palestinians to share the city and that security for both peoples can only be ensured by separation.

I don't buy it. Envisioning Israeli-Palestinian peace these days is in itself an act of hard-headed faith. So is imagining that the settlements will come down and that Palestinian militants will accept the right of Israelis to live in what these militants consider to be Palestine. An agreement based on cold "realism," on the premise that the only way to ensure security is through physical separation is doomed to fail.

I have to admit that I have strong feelings on this subject. I made my first trip to Israel in 1968, exactly a year after the reunification of the city. I was with a Jewish student group and we spent a few months at the Rivoli Hotel on Salah-al-Din Street. Salah-al-Din Street is East Jerusalem's Main Street. Just outside Herod's Gate, adjacent to the Damascus Gate, it is the heart of Palestinian Jerusalem. I think we were the first Jewish group ever housed there. We may also have been the last.

Back in 1967, the hope was that Jerusalem would become one city after 19 years of division. But, in the years since, the two sectors have grown further apart. One of the new Israeli highways practically cuts the city in two and it is physically more difficult to move from one side to the other today than at any time since 1967. Whenever I'm in Jerusalem, I walk over to Salah-al-Din to see my old haunts. Other than cops and the occasional soldier, there are few Israelis to be seen. Palestinians don't venture up the hill to the other side much either.

Peace will be achieved not by further division but by the real unification that will be produced when undivided Jerusalem serves as the shared capital of two countries. Dividing it with walls and checkpoints would tear the heart out of the city. Sharing it would save its soul.

Jerusalem is very much on the negotiating table. As Obama said on CNN after the speech, "Obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be a part of those negotiations."

But, he added, "Israel has a legitimate claim on that city." That is absolutely right.

I think the Obama AIPAC speech, and his warm reception there, will make the task of the e-mail smear artists more difficult. But I don't think they are going to stop peddling their lies.

Nor will Obama be the only target. John McCain will also receive his share of smears. Every four years Israel becomes a political football kicked around by partisans of the respective candidates.

Ideally, however, the issue will move off center stage. Both candidates are pro-Israel. And both are, even more than that, committed to advancing the security of the United States.

That requires helping Israelis and Palestinians achieve an agreement that guarantees peace and security for both peoples. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the sole cause of anti-American animus and anti-American terrorism, but it is one of the most significant ones. The 44th President cannot hope to win the so-called war on terror unless he is prepared to lead America back to its role of honest broker in the region. That means ending the bloodshed, relieving the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and moving quickly toward a political agreement.

That is what I hope the next president will do. If not, the situation will deteriorate rapidly. Let's hope that Obama and McCain are each ready to push hard for a breakthrough starting on Day 1.

MJ Rosenberg is the Director of Israel Policy Forum's Washington Policy Center.

Comments

[NotMcCain]

Well said. There's a big difference between what Obama said and just repeating the most conservative Israeli talking points (i.e. pandering with the "we don't talk to terrorists" applause lines, etc).

Obama wanted them to know he's a friend to Israel and that as President he will continue our commitment to them. But he also made it clear that peace is a goal we all must never lose sight of and that there are many different ideas to discuss as to how to reach that goal.

One thing about Rev. Wright (like with his anti-Iraq war stand when it could have ended his political career)--even with his back to the wall, he doesn't pander.

I was thrilled by his reception with AIPAC--and the possiblity that we could soon have a president who would devote his efforts to Middle East PEACE.

[robinhood2]

I think it would have been better if none of the presidential candidates had addressed the AIPAC convention. Such speeches only encourage them to make commitments that are out of sink with most US voters and give Israeli leaders a free hand to do as they please regarding Iran. Some things are better said behind closed doors. It is not surprising that oil jumped on Friday, after the comments made by an Israeli politician regarding Iran, and that the stock market tanked. The US already has its hands full with Iraq (and Afghanistan). Americans don't want to pay higher taxes and don't want the draft to be reinstated. The US military is already stretched thin and, for those who have forgotten, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is still the law of the land. In 1939, the American Jewish community couldn't even persuade Roosevelt to admit 900 German Jewish refugees from the ship "St. Louis" at a time when Jews made up about 4% of the population. Now they make up less than 2% of the population, but appear to have much more influence in Washington. AIPAC should not press its luck. A third war front in the Middle East would be very bad for the US and it is certainly not prepared for one. It would be very unfortunate if America's young people, who are very supportive of Obama, were rewarded with a reinstatement of the draft in 2009 or 2010.

[john456]

Once again the horse is before the cart. I believe the first step is to actively work to create prosperity and establish a Palestinian Middle Class that Israeli paranoia does not drive away. If every Jew in the old British Mandate of Palestine were to leave today, nothing would change. The politicians in control would blame every mishap on the "Israeli Occupation." If Jerusalem needs to be Israeli and Jewish, I suggest that every Palestinian property and even those in which there is some doubt be fairly assessed for its value. Then pay double or triple to buy it from the owner; it will be far cheaper in both blood and treasure in the long run

[KPinSEA]

I did find Obama's comments to be a disappointing form of pandering, but not surprising given the audience and the realities of Democratic party politics ... it wasn't as dangerous a pander as raising the specter of 'obliterating' one of Israel's neighbors, at least.

The bottom line is that peace is not achieved in Israel/Palestine because both parties lack the political will to achieve it ... they still want 'victory' more than peace. For Israel, victory is defined as continued territorial expansion and exclusive control of Jerusalem. For the Palestinians, victory is defined as a contiguous state, sovereignty over a portion of Jerusalem, and right of return to ancestral lands lost in Israel.

Only when both sides place a higher value than peace than on victory will the political conditions for peace have a chance to exist. The United States cannot create that political will in Israel and Palestine. We can only stop being enablers of intransigence by either side and stop funding occupation and oppression. The President who can take *that* risky political stance will indeed have achieved Real Change.

[peterv]

Had some illusion that Obama might be finally different qua foreign policy, maybe in some way he still is, but his speech in front of Jewish Lobbying group was disappointing. The irony, of course, is that Iran is nowhere near obtaining nuclear weapons, as the President's own intelligence agencies recently informed him: but no matter.

[marymansour]

I realize that Barack Obama must get the Jewish vote and am glad that he stated a need for two distinct states - Palestine and Israel. I also hope that he will negotiate with Hamas since they just happen to be the elected government of the Palestinian people. As for Jerusalem, it should be a city apart, a unified city where Muslims, Christians and Jews can visit and worship freely without opposition or the requirement of impossible­-to-obtain ID and documentation.

Israel will never know real peace of mind until the European Jews no longer look down on and repress the Arabs as well as those Jews who were born south of Europe. I have heard horror tales of Jews from Morocco being washed down with DDT anti-vermin spray before being allowed to debark from the ship. These were told to me by an Israeli air force pilot whose family were among those enduring the insulting and degrading hose job. Israel is divided within itself by racial prejudice - European and American Jews vs. the Semitic world of Jews and Arabs. As Jimmy Carter stated in Wales recently and I paraphrase: The treatment of Palestinians by Israel is among the worst crimes of humanity. It's an open sore that never heals.

[tipiglen6]

The question of Jerusalem would be best solved as intended in the original "partition" UN resolution 181
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm
"The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations. The Trusteeship Council shall be designated to discharge the responsibilities of the Administering Authority on behalf of the United Nations."

This resolution, as many may not know, was prevented from coming into being NOT by Arab rejection, but by proto-Israeli aggression:
"Before the end of the mandate and, therefore before any possible intervention by Arab states, the Jews, taking advantage of their superior military preparation and organization, had occupied...most of the Arab cities in Palestine before May 15, 1948. Tiberias was occupied on April 19, 1948, Haifa on April 22, Jaffa on April 28, the Arab quarters in the New City of Jerusalem on April 30, Beisan on May 8, Safad on May 10 and Acre on May 14, 1948...In contrast, the Palestine Arabs did not seize any of the territories reserved for the Jewish state under the partition resolution." British author, Henry Cattan, "Palestine, The Arabs and Israel."

[JackLivigni]

Because of the dishonest and aggressive smear campaigns Obama was subject to, he has been basically forced to really be detailed and outspoken about his positions in regards to Israel. In so doing Obama has greatly enhanced his position amongst a very strong republican constituency: pro-Israeli evangelicals that see Jerusalem as the returning place for Jesus' 2nd coming.

If Obama can cut into Republican Evangelical support he has taken away a key McCain support group.

Just look at the publicity below "Jews For Jesus" and you will realize just how much exposure Obama has received in the Evangelical community. The Republican attacks are a bitter fruit and finally many evangelicals are going to taste them for what they are because a candidate has outfoxed them.

[FogBelter]

Mr. Rosenberg, I think the question of Jerusalem is greater than the Israelis and the Palestinians. The religious symbolism associated with the city by billions of faithful Jews, Christians, and Moslems makes the issue of Jerusalem greater than a squabble over territory. The wisest thing to do is to give Jerusalem independent City State status and have it administered from without by the United Nations and a Religious Unity Council. To guarantee Military Neutrality in City State Jerusalem I would want to see a Peace Keeping Force of non Jews/Chris­tians/Mosl­ems installed (perhaps Hindus or Buddhists) to insure the Peace.

I know it goes against all the tenets of the various religions that value Jerusalem to go the way I suggest, but I prefer a secular peace to a religious war.

[tipiglen6]

Please note, as I have elsewhere, that this is by no means an original thought (not to demean it in any way), but was part of the original "partition" resolution 181
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm
"The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations. The Trusteeship Council shall be designated to discharge the responsibilities of the Administering Authority on behalf of the United Nations.".
"To protect and to preserve the unique spiritual and religious interests located in the city of the three great monotheistic faiths throughout the world, Christian, Jewish and Moslem; to this end to ensure that order and peace, and especially religious peace, reign in Jerusalem...."

This was, of course, thwarted by "Plan Dalet", in which proto-Israeli militias (IRGUN, etc.) pre-emptively attacked and occupied Arab villages, towns and cities and created over half a million refugees before the British Mandate ended, thus expanding their area of control to 77% of Palestine instead of the proposed partition allocation of 55% Resolution 181, thus never was implemented, and NOT because of Arab rejection, but because of Israeli aggression.

[FogBelter]

Thank you for sharing the specifics ... I figured my idea wasn't original. I don't see how you split Jerusalem successfully between hostile factions and, frankly, enough World energy has been directed to a sliver of land in the Middle East. It would be nice if there could be peace between the Israelis and Palestinians for no other reason than an inordinate amount of time and energy has been focused on this conflict when there is an entire world of simmering issues ... not to mention domestic US issues ... that truly warrant America's attention.

A City State Jerusalem would at least solve one glaring aspect of the conflict.

[SamSedaei - Huffpost Blogger]

I have been a supporter of Obama since before Iowa and have written many blogs in his support on this site. But his performance in front of one of the most corrupt lobbying groups in the U.S. was utterly shameful and disgusting. If he maintains this kind of rhetoric, there will be no peace and there will be no fixing of our image no matter how many times he screams "hope" or "change." I'm deeply disgusted.

[Gemma08]

Substantiate.

[Justtellthetruth]

I look forward to seeing all settlements and settlers removed. If you want east Jerusalem under Palestinian control, thats great. But every single illegal settlement must go.

Whatever happens, I gather that Obama will ACTUALLY work steadfastly towards a fair negotiated peace.

[alexa07]

It is a huge disappointment to me that our candidates feel that they need to support Israel NO MATTER WHAT it does in the region. I found Obama's comments as well as Hillary's to be so hugely ridiculous that one had better laugh than cry about it. McCain, Romney & other GOPs have been equally as bad, or worse.These are the individuals who want to run our country? Did anyone see what happened to the stock market today when the Olmert & company threatened to attack Iran? We are supposed to send the entire world into an economic chaos to enable this land-grabbing bully? Shame on our candidates.

[JonSmiley]

Nice piece MJ. It's very refreshing to see Jewish voices of moderation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

[pavehawkdoc]

Typical Obama, speaking out of both sides of his mouth, but this time he had the unmitigated stupidity to say completely opposite things on two consecutive days. Does he not think people are hearing his words or are the masses just too spellbound by his messianic oratory to actually analyze the verbiage? Words do matter and his contradict each other on a daily basis. Even John Kerry couldn't hold two contrary positions in the same 24 hour period.

Only the most imbecilic sycophant could deny that Wednesday Sen Obama said Jerusalem should be the undivided Capital of Israel and then retract it the next day after a firestorm of Palestinian and Leftist criticism threatened to unnerve his hard core Israel hating base. I continue to be most amazed by his Jewish supporters backing a man whose policies could mean the end of the Jewish state.

I am tired of politicians saying anything to get elected and BHO is just a slicker thinner version of the average Chicago flimflam artist. Will America wake up?

[JackLivigni]

You see what you want to. Go back and read what Obama said exactly after having said the one phrase about Jerusalem the media has pushed. Go ahead... do your research... go...

Then you will see there is no contradiction.

[Marlyn]

"policies could mean the end of the Jewish state. " ???

How so?

[tipiglen6]

It's surprising that Jews, who constitute the most intelligent gene pool on Earth can be deceived by such rubbish.

I noted in a conversation on "Charlie Rose" that many American Jews say"No division of Jerusalem!", and "No removal of settlements!", etc., while sitting happily in New York, Miami or California.
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/06/02/1/a-conversation-with-sir-lawrence-freedman-aaron-david-miller
(it's towards the end of a thorough analysis of the entire Middle-East situation.)

[stamper]

My sister and her neighbors in Florida have been receiving these libelous emails and it is working. Many of the jews down there are currently backing mccain because of this. I have done my homework and Obama has an outstanding record on Israeli issues, as good or better than McCain and Clinton. Please contact AIPAC.ORG and urge them to use their resources and influence to keep this election honest and put to rest the lies being spread in the jewish community. this could hurt Obama and i am tired of us losing good candidates, and good soldiers over lies!

[tipiglen6]

It's surprising that Jews, who constitute the most intelligent gene pool on Earth can be deceived by such rubbish.

I noted in a conversation on "Charlie Rose" that many American Jews say"No division of Jerusalem!", and "No removal of settlements!", etc., while sitting happily in New York, Miami or California.
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/06/02/1/a-conversation-with-sir-lawrence-freedman-aaron-david-miller
(it's towards the end of a thorough analysis of the entire Middle-East situation.)

[Josol]

Good idea... I doubt they will listen, but we should contact AIPAC ....in masses. They have destroyed so many good and honest candidates.. Jerry Brown got wiped out by these guys. They are scarier than Scientology.