http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=865078
Debating Obama's Jerusalem position
My take on Obama and Jerusalem
(the speech) was fairly clear,
and in What To Read (see 6.6.2008)
you can also read what the OU is
thinking about it.
By the way,
the phrase "happy again" that I was using,
describing the OU's position, is probably
too strong:
The OU is still disappointed with Obama's "revisions".
But not as disappointed
as it was by the initial revisions.
Anyway,
here is Marty Peretz
of TNR on the same topic:
let's examine what Obama believes.
One that Jerusalem is and will
continue to be the capital of
the Jewish state.
There are no ifs or buts about that.
This was not always the official American position.
Still, it is now,
and Obama has affirmed it will
continue to be American policy
under his presidency.
Frankly,
unless Jimmy Carter were suddenly
to pick up a second term it is
inconceivable that any American
president would renege on this.
Obama also asserted that the
city will remain undivided.
This is his guarantee of American
backing for a city map that will
not cut off the Mount of Olives
from the rest of Jerusalem and
that Pisgat Ze'ev and
Neve Ya'akov which,
east of Arab neighborhoods,
were added and annexed to
Jerusalem after 1967 and
will remain in Jerusalem.
But keep in mind that these intricate
matters must be hashed out and ratified
at the negotiating table.
Unilateral action is always unstable,
and these acts will become permanent
in the eyes of the Palestinians.
And here is the factcheck
from AP on Obama and Jerusalem:
Obama is trying to have it both ways,
but there is nothing new about that.
So does President Bush. President Clinton did, too.
A 1995 U.S. law recognizes Jerusalem
as the capital of Israel and ordered
the U.S. embassy to move to Jerusalem
from a neutral site in nearby Tel Aviv.
Using their presidential power,
Clinton and then Bush have
routinely suspended the
relocation of the embassy
while saying the U.S. is still
committed to doing it.
Bush issued the latest waiver just this week.
At the same time,
both the Clinton and Bush
administrations considered
Jerusalem a matter for
negotiation between Israel
and the Palestinians,
just as Obama said he would do.
Jerusalem is on the table in the
current U.S.-backed negotiations
on so-called 'final status issues"
in the six-decade conflict.
And an editorial from
Arab News of Saudi Arabia:
Obama has now amended his thoughts.
In the face of Palestinian condemnation,
he says that the status of East Jerusalem
is a matter for them and the Israelis to
negotiate.
We must view this positively.
No US leader in half-a-century has
so pointedly regretted any previous
pro-Israeli statement.
Maybe it is a sign of things to come.
On the other hand,
his change of heart about East Jerusalem,
welcome though it is, brings him exactly
where the Bush administration is.
It too says that it is for the
Palestinians and Israelis to
negotiate.
So other than on Iraq,
where he wants withdrawal,
and on Syria, where he sup****ts
Israel's decision to negotiate with it,
there is no difference - and the latter
can hardly be regarded as a major divergence.
6.6.2008
Why the OU is happy again about Obama
After congratulating Obama and then
expressing disappointment with him -
all because of the coments he made
regarding Jerusalem -
not the Orthodox Union is happy again.
Obama explained his position
on CNN yesterday, saying that
"My belief is that as a practical
matter it would be very difficult
to execute.
And I think that it is smart
for us to work through a system
in which everybody has access to
the extraordinary religious sites
in old Jerusalem.
But, Israel has a legitimate claim on that city."
Nathan Diament of the OU finds
this *****ment to be "correct".
Here's what the press release says:
Sen. Obama is correct that the
re-division of Jerusalem is impractical.
Jerusalem is a diverse city where Jewish
and Arab neighborhoods are scattered
in a patchwork.
It is not only impractical
to divide such a city,
it would be unwise.
Sen. Obama is also correct that
we must ensure that people of every faith
have access to all of the extraordinary
religious sites of Jerusalem.
Recent history has shown that
such access and freedom of wor****p
has only existed with Jerusalem under
Israeli sovereignty.
Merely four decades ago,
when Arabs controlled the Old City,
sacred places of wor****p were sacked
and people were denied access to their
holiest sites.
And more recently,
when synagogues in Gaza or Joseph's
Tomb in Nablus came under Arab control,
they too were destroyed.
The Orthodox Union would ask Sen. Obama
to consider these facts as he continues
to consider his position with regard to
the fate of Jerusalem.
|
