Religion, Nationalism, and Terror

Like Gershom Gorenberg and a lot of other people, I was disturbed by Obama’s pandering to AIPAC–no matter how his advisors have tried to “clarify” his remarks. But when you compare Obama’s views on foreign policy in general with McCain’s, the sensible choice is obvious.

Undivided Jerusalem, South Jerusalem: Gershom Gorenberg and Haim Watzman, June 2008

An adviser to the Obama campaign has responded to my criticism of O’s statement to Aipac, “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” The adviser, remaining anonymous, says that that the candidate really means physically undivided: Obama “has said before that Jerusalem is a final status issue to be negotiated by the parties, but that two principles that should guide any outcome is that it will remain Israel’s capital and it should never be redivided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was from 1948-67.” I’m satisfied with that as a position. I still think it was disingenuous and damaging to use the formulation he used before Aipac. The audience - in the hall, and around the world - heard “undivided Jerusalem” in the way that official Israel constantly uses the phrase, meaning politically undivided. That was red meat for the Aipac crowd. Saying “physically undivided” would have been a red flag. Afterward, Obama had to clarify, or backtrack, or write a midrash on his own words, in order to maintain his dedication to effective diplomacy. Better not to have raised the issue. But then, Obama was talking to a crowd inclined to believe both Pinocchio Pipes and the frontier fallacy. He faced the classic dilemma of a high school kid at the wrong party - being yourself and being popular just don’t fit together.