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

[freshnotbitter]

Add Libya, the Arabian peninsula, Iran, Iraq and Indonesia and you have 1/3rd of the world oil production in the hands of Islamic states that say Jerusalem is actually called AlQuds and is the second most holy city in Islam, a city from which Mohamet rose to heaven.

You do the math.

[pkafin]

No Muslim says Jerusalem is the second holiest city in Islam. It is the third after Mecca and Medina. It is worth mentioning, however, that the word "Jerusalem", while appearing in the Torah over 660 times is not mentioned even once in the Koran.

The story of Muhamet ascending to heaven on his horse mentions "the far mosque", which Muslims have taken to mean the dome of the rock in Jersualem. But, even in that story, the name "Jerusalem" does not appear.

[InjunTrouble]

Pandering to the this American fifth column otherwise known as AIPAC is a great idea.

Obama should pander to them even more - promise them more settlements, promise them more weapons, promise them that we will starve Hamas till they all die, promise them anything.

After the elections are over and Obama is in the office, then is the right time to start dismantling this disloyal bunch of bullies. In four years would should make sure that nobody in the US ever gives AIPAC even the time of day. The world would be much better without this fascist organization (the NRA is next in line).

[tipiglen6]

fingers crossde!

[AdamWykle]

If the Israelies want Jerusalem along with the West Bank so badly, they should support a binational one state solution where both the immigrants of the land and the natural inhabitants share it side by side, from the river to the sea.

But to ethnically cleanse Jerusalem and wipe out any trace of the Palestinians, and their culture and history, is outright disgusting and must come to an end.

[MagisterLudi]

"...ethnic­ally cleanse Jerusalem and wipe out any trace of the Palestinia­ns."
Only someone who never been to Arab East Jerusalem would be so carelessly hysterical with his comments.
,

And guess what, dude. Like it or not, majority of Israelis are native born. This "immigrant" stuff held water maybe in 1938, but not now. Think about it, if you able.

[Gemma08]

Please justify to me then why a person born anywhere in the world of Jewish ethnicity, (including Atheist) can lay claim to Israel, yet the native Arabs who were born there but fled or were pushed out by the Israelis are denied the right to return and have never been compensated for their material losses.

I await your answer in anticipation.

[melakfilms]

I wish politicians would focus their attentions on the murder of hundreds of people every year by gang members in Los Angeles County. Or Detroit. Or New York. I've come to the conclusion after many years of trying to care, that I'm completely sick of hearing about it. Why does the undending conflict in the Arab world concern us? In stark contrast, African nations, dare I say even tribes within single nations, can get away with murdering hundreds of thousands of innocents without even a thought from American citizenry. Five thousand women and children might've been slaughtered this month in Darfur and we'll never hear about it. Two people get blown up in a deli in Jerusalem and it'll get non-stop coverage on all the major news outlets, daily, for the next week.

For some reason, we've come to a place in our history where Israeli blood is worth more than that of any other countryperson's. Why the Israelis have this kind of power is completely beyond my comprehension. What do they offer our country again?

And for the nutjobs that will respond to this comment, calling it another anti-semitic rant I will say, in advance of your rabid ravings, that I do care about the Jewish people. I also happen to care about the Palestinian people. And the Sudanese, Ethiopians, Somalis, North Koreans, on and on... I just care about them equally and they all deserve the same kind of human justice.

[outsidein]

thank you for finally expressing the cries of the two-thirds world (no, not the 3rd world, but rather the fledgling majority) I nominate this for Huffpost's pick! We all bleed the same blood, and none of us should have to.

[peterv]

1. I always think it is very questionable to successfully initiate 'peace' negotiations when the mediator is a staunch supporter of one of the parties involved. (most successful negotiations involved uncommitted third parties or UN in conflicts around the world)
2. The geography of a future Palestine state is precarious, Gaza with democratically elected hamas, which people seem to forgot, it was and probably is a populair movement. West - Bank with many Jewish settlements across the landscape.
3. The definition of refugee is unique for the palestinians, and Arab nations use that as bargaining chip
They have fewer rights than other nationalities, except in Jordan.
The reality is that palestinians in camps are giving some faint hope that one day they will return to their lands, this should be made clear and negotiated that this is almost criminal to let these people live in thses camps with some faint idea.
4. On settlements that should stop, and be reduced, and finally abandoned otherwise it is still occupied and never will become a viable nation

[maddie0001]

I think, regardless of who's elected, 8 years from now we'll be in the same place we are now, Israelis and Palestinians killing each other and the US footing the bill (on the Israeli side) and pretending to be 'neutral'.

[kristycu]

If we are doing everything we can, and i mean a serious effort on our part. and they still are fighting, then they don't really want peace. if every opportunity is presented, and one side is willing to give something but the other is not, then that is not our fault. They also have to be willing and if all parties are truly willing to solve this then it will happen, because if one side wants to and the other does not. then it will ever happen

[DBracewell]

You are assuming that Israel is one side, the Palestinians the other.

The facts are very different. The sides line up as Israel and the US on one side, the Palestinians on the other.

The US is not and has never been an honest broker.

Both the US and Israel, often for reasons of their own, but generally in concert with each other, have been utterly rejectionist in seeking a just solution since the mid-1970s. Oslo was used as a tool by Israel, with the US complicit, to massively accelrate the expansion of settlements while the Palestinians stood by impotent to stop it. Clinton then attempted to imposed with Barak another rejectionist solution in the Oslo framework to deprive the Palestinians of the agreed-to state as provided under Oslo (read negotiator Robert Malley's account). What they were offering the Palestinians was nothing more than subjugated and Israeli-controlled reserves without any real autonomy. Not unlike US Indian reserves of the 19th century.

It is the US and Israel who don't really want peace. The US is at the heart of this rejection. The Palestinians, whose record has been by far the more laudable, have been the victims of the US and Israel.

So it is very much the US's, along with Israel's fault.

The Palestinians aren't perfect, but at critical points they have attempted real negotiations, accepted real sacrifice for a solution. Never has this been the case with Israel nor of the US.

[wayoutleft]

obama has a chance to be a foreign policy superstar with the right team and initiatives. i want him to end the occupation of iraq. i'm not sure he will and i'm not sure israelis are comfortable with true self-determination there. we are still under the outmoded "oppressed people" mode, which described soviet control. but in muslim countries, the population can be more single minded and militant than their governments. i think better sooner than later to open broad communication channels.

[NABNYC]

I am waiting, and waiting, and waiting for the American presidential race to be about something other than Israel. We hear lots about the bogeymen and the hysteria: that bad old Hamas, that terrible Hezbollah, Iran will destroy israel, Hillary will obliterate Iran, and so on ad nauseaum. In 2007 there were 13 Israelis killed by any Palestinian. In 2006 there were 17. I believe the entire number of Israelis murdered in 2007 was 47. Hear that people? It's safe over there in contrast with the good old U.S. of A. with our violent neighborhoods, drugs, guns, economy in shambles (of course we just gave another $10 billion to Israel), people out of work, schools being shut down, teachers being laid off, factories sent to China, stock market in the toilet, gas unaffordable, public transportation nonexistent, healthcare for the rich and sickness and early death for the poor.

And the politicians are all talking about Jerusalem as if that was "Jerusalem, U.S.A." How about if our politicians tell us their bright ideas for "fixing" the problems with Detroit, Oakland, Newark and New Orleans and leave someone else to worry about Jerusalem. How about jobs for the U.S. instead of hand-outs for Israel? How about healthcare for Americans instead of unconditional support for the genocidal apartheid policies of Israel? How about if we get our priorities straight and demand our politicians take care of our own people instead of some other country?

[edwarvir]

GOD tells us to pray for Israel, and he wil bless us and our family. We must
pray for Israel.

[NABNYC]

It isn't the praying part that bothers me. It's the U.S. sending billions of dollars of my money to Israel every year for no good reason at all. I get nothing from that. Spend it here, I get a new school, road, water system, jobs, people who can spend money in local businesses. Send that money to Israel, I get zero. Of the course the U.S. politicians get kick-backs, but that is exactly the point.

And as far as prayers, I think anyone who is so inclined should pray like crazy, pray for Israel all you want. I don't mind that -- I do mind sending my military over to conduct Israel's foreign policy, their plan to attack, invade, destroy every other country in the middle east, using my military to do so. That bothers me.

And doesn't it seem so incongruous that a country that calls itself religious is constantly starting wars, stealing other people's land and trees and fields and houses and water and resources, causing others to suffer terribly during their lives and to die young? I just don't know what kind of a religion would back up that play.

[outsidein]

Does God also tell you to sacrifice yourself in the process? and protect Israel at the expense of nation after nation? Don't slander your religion in the name of ignorance.

[dobberdoss]

Does G-d really?, have you spoken with him,her or it? Clearly you need help.
I cant believe America is being railroaded by a deluded `chip on its shoulder forever` nation that has learnt nothing from its own history of bigotry, racism & paranoia which itself preaches in the name of g-d. how ironic. Revenge is creating a new evil

[tipiglen6]

As you note the number of Israelis killed by Palestinians, why not also note the much larger number of Palestinians killed by Israelis? Notably 78 CHILDREN this year so far!
http://www.btselem.org/english/statistics/Casualties.asp
Plenty more sources here:
http://home2.btconnect.com/tipiglen/primer.html
Salaam/Sha­lom/Shanth­i/Dorood/P­eace
-ed

[NABNYC]

tipiglen6: The reason I put in the number of Israelis killed by Palestinians was to make the point that this entire hysteria being created in the U.S. about the bogeymen Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, etc., is based on nothing but a desire by certain groups to keep the money flowing, keep the wars going, keep the insanity prevailing. Actually, there were 1000 Palestinians killed by Israel during the same period I mentioned -- 2006 and 2007, so you've understated the point.

My point is that the same groups that want to keep the U.S. a military nation, imperialistic and injust, used similar lies in the past to fool the public. The whole cold war was based on the stories about the communists raping the nuns. Yet the only time I know that nuns were really raped was by the U.S.-backe­d government in El Salvador, which also killed the nuns. But the hysteria, the bogeymen, the scary shadows, the anti-Arab racism, the "Israel will be annihilated" craziness that is a daily part of the political lies in this country, is what is used to keep the money flowing to Isreal and to the defense industries. Then of course Israel peels a big chunk off the top, launders it back into the U.S., and uses it to give our politicians a kick-back.

Israel is just today's partner in crime. Tomorrow it could be Iran or China. The principle is what's important, not really the players.

[washington31]

Great Read, and I agree with you and Obama.

[gureumi]

I like the idea that Israel should unilaterally give up the city to the right owners, Palestinians.

[pkafin]

That's an odd statement. Is as if you don't realize both that Jews have been living there for uninterrupted centuries and that Jerusalem is the center of the Jewish religion and was so for a millenia before Islam was even founded.

It may be that modern reality necessitates a sharing of the city. As I understand it, the city is quite segregated and drawing some political lines would not change much on the ground.

But, the idea that Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinians and that the Israelis (some 20% of whom are Muslim by the way) are a foreign presence is absurd.

[Gemma08]

What you fail to acknowledge is that 99% of the original native Jewish Palestinians ie the Shepardic Jews (as opposed to the European or Ashkenazi Jew) were anti-Zionist and anti-Israel.

If you dont believe me go visit the website of the truetorahjews. http://www.truetorahjews.com

Since then the Ashkenazi (most Atheist ) Jews outnumber the historic Shephardic Jews and the 'myth' of Israel has become an accepted myth.

There is much you dont know, my friend. Much.

[ObserverinVancouver]

Following is an excerpt from Sen. Obama's AIPAC speech:

"... [M]y great-uncle had been a part of the 89th Infantry Division — the first Americans to reach a Nazi concentration camp. They liberated Ohrdruf, part of Buchenwald, on an April day in 1945. The horrors of that camp go beyond our capacity to imagine. Tens of thousands died of hunger, torture, disease, or plain murder — part of the Nazi killing machine that killed 6 million people.

When the Americans marched in, they discovered huge piles of dead bodies and starving survivors. Gen. Eisenhower ordered Germans from the nearby town to tour the camp, so they could see what was being done in their name. He ordered American troops to tour the camp, so they could see the evil they were fighting against. He invited congressmen and journalists to bear witness. And he ordered that photographs and films be made. Explaining his actions, Eisenhower said that he wanted to produce "firsthand evidence of these things, if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to propaganda­."

I was really struck by the swift shift from personal family experience to Eisenhower's anticipation of future holocaust denial (as in, take that, Ahmadinejad). I wonder if it hit a responsive chord in his audience?

[vernonbc]

Very moving comments from Barack Obama. Why in the world, then, were the only comments shown on any MSM about Hillary. I get so angry at our media. They have the nerve to say America doesn't know Obama, that he needs to introduce himself to the country, when for 16 months he's been doing just that but it never hit tv unless it referenced Clinton. Maybe, just maybe, she'll get out of the way tomorrow and we'll finally get to hear what Obama's all about.

[jrockbg]

"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."

That's grossly disingenuous, MJ. Bush and the Israeli government have already started down the path of a two-state policy. Obama isn't breaking any new ground. And I was also inspired by his rhetoric at AIPAC. That was until the very next day when his tone on Israel was tamed almost to the point of contradiction.

[StudentThinker]

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

SO DO THE PALESTINIANS.

But where is mention made of THEIR rights? If we truly want peace we need to start with the EQUALITY of Israelis and Palestinians, and this means acknowledging the rights of BOTH parties. EXPLICITLY, since they are all too easily lost in the streams of high-sounding rhetoric. When we says Israel has a right to such and such, let us ALSO say that the Palestinians have a right to such and such. Is that too much to ask? EQUAL acknowledgment of rights?

Otherwise I am in agreement with most of your article, Mr. Rosenberg, and thank you for posting it.