I suspect that given Obama’s constant refutations of the claim that he’s a secret Muslim ( :rolleyes: ), Muslims are offended enough that it won’t much matter what he says about Israeli-Palestinian relations.
More related to my OP:
If that’s not a gaffe, nothing is.
I’d think that a divided city would be on the pre-1967 model, with movement between parts difficult or impossible. The next town starts in easy walking distance from my house, and I don’t really think of the two towns are divided. A situation where there can be a political division without checkpoints would indicate a better political and security situation, I’d think.
It was a gaffe. At least a gaffe in the sense of a poor and mangled communication of what he was trying to say and one that therefore caused him problems.
His position in truth has been consistent: Jerusalem should remain Israel’s capital and should not be physically divided. The question of whether or not the Palestinians can politically claim any part of the city as well is a question to be decided upon by the parties involved.
His expression of that idea was a mishmosh that came off as a pander too far and required what looked like a backtrack the following days. A major lost opportunity that will be spun as either flip-flopping or a result of inexperience or both.
Still, the whole episode still probably earned him more points with the pro-Israel crowd than it hurt him with either the same people or with American Arabs. (You really think that they’ll go McCain?)
As various wits on the boards will no doubt claim, I’m a dastardly pro-Israel fanatic bent on selling my own country out to further Isreal’s interests. So I hope when I say I’m politically undecided so far until I see how both candidates shake out when their (non-primary) positions are given full light… you take it seriously when I say that Obama’s claims do indeed either seem like flip flopping or the result of tremendous inexperience, and make me think he’s not ready for prime time.
The US should be able to stand as an honest broker for peace, and McCain’s position that the Final Status of Jerusalem is to be realized via negotiation is a hell of a lot better than claiming that Jerusalem must remain undivided in the future. Even if backtracking is later engaged in which says that a negotiated division would be acceptable or if a rather novice mistake was made because Obama simply didn’t understand the terminology involved. It does seem like a pander too far and I’d much prefer a candidate who can deal with ME tensions by saying that he supports compromise and negotiation rather than a unilateral deceleration of Jerusalem’s status.
/$.02
Edit:
P.S. I sure wish that there were fewer people on the board whose stock in trade is dishonesty and fabrication. In almost any debate on Israel/the US/the ME, I find myself spending all of my posts simply correcting bullshit and pointing out facts. Boy oh boy how I’d love a debate with 100% of its participants being knowledgeable, honest participants, interested in discussing how to achieve a just and fair two state solution.
Of course, on this board, that’ll never happen. But a man can dream.
Finn, as you and I have participated together in many of those Israelocentric threads, you will, I think, know my general views.
I actually do think that Obama will be better for the prospects of real progress between Israel and the Palestinians than McCain, despite this gaffe.
Obama’s gaffe, even if it really was a pander, is one sort of mistake. Not knowing a Sunni from a Shi’ite, is another. McCain would, I think, continue the impotent approach that has been the hallmark of these past eight Bush years. There is no way that McCain will be viewed as an honest broker. Obama has a much better chance of it, and will be able to count on an international community want to support an American decision to go in such different direction than Bush.
FWIW.
Agreed on the first point, the jury is still out on the second. I think it might depend on what type of advisors McCain gets. But I will agree that ignorance of the Sunni/Shia split is a major, major black mark in McCain’s column. But by the same token, I haven’t decided what, exactly, Obama’s gaffe represents in that arena. Besides, come election time I’ll either be a resident of New York or Texas. My vote isn’t exactly going to matter.
To the degree that he’s seen as John McBush, then no, he won’t. I wouldn’t put the possibility at “no way”, however. If McCain can elaborate a position that calls for negotiations, a total settlement freeze and economic incentives to help rebuild Palestinian society? Then maybe. Whether or not he (or Obama) will actually do that once they not only get their positions down, but actually implement parts of their campaign promises? That’s another kettle of fish.
Meanwhile, I have to say that with news like this, things could get very, very interesting for this election’s tone and focus (to say nothing of life in Canada. If a few synagogues get blown up in Toronto, I can expect that various subjects, ranging from understanding of the Sunni-Shia split to our ME policies in general, will get put into much sharper focus.
In specific, I’m sure, both Obama and McCain’s earlier statements about Iran would be combed over with filibuster vigilance. We can expect another ‘gaffe’ or two to emerge from statements or predictions that turn out to be silly, at best.
Of course, if luck is with us and Hezbollah is just shifting assets around and not going to launch any major strikes, Obama’s minor gaffe of saying that Iran was not a serious threat, followed by calling it a grave threat, will probably fade away into the background chatter of the race.
That is not a quote from Obama’s Memorial Day speech. That is a quote from the movie “Sixth Sense”.