What Is Obama's Stance on East Jerusalem Being the Capital of Palestine?

[redstate_democrat]

I've heard conflicting reports on this. On one hand, some people say he is for an "undivided" Jerusalem being the capital of Israel. Well, we know THAT won't fly with Palestine, because that issue is precisely one of the final status issues that is a non starter for Palestine. On the other hand, I've heard that when he says "undivided", he means "physically" undivided, as in no "barb wire" running down the middle of the city. However, he remains ambiguous on his stance on whether East Jerusalem should be the capital of Palestine in a physically borderless Jerusalem.

I would like to know if anyone knows what his position is on this matter. I know he says final status issues are left between the parties to decide, but he has not shied away from making his preferences clear on whether or not Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel. Does he mean ALL OF Jerusalem?

I think this is a very important part of his foreign policy platform. It is one of the keys to the "war on terror". The antipathy felt towards America is founded precisely in how many Arabs view America's role in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Over 90% of them feel like we are not evenhanded in this. This sort of animosity breeds anti-American sentiment and drives young Muslims into the arms of Al Quada and other extremists groups. This situation has to be resolved fairly in order for there to be any real peace and improvement in the Middle East. We can fight a hundred wars there, get rid of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, but tomorrow there will be another Arab child born in poverty and a system they believe is inherently discriminatory and unfair to them. This just creates a cycle of hatred towards their perceived oppressors. Understanding this is fundamental, in my opinion.

So, what is his stance on East Jerusalem and Palestine?

[crankychatter]

1. kicking for an answer

The DNC Platform USED to have a plank specifically FOR Israel with a statement that Jerusalem would be her capitol. I remember reading it in 04 as we were assembling platform suggestions for the State Convention.

My memory is imperfect, and I don't know where to find it online... it's probably there somewhere. If I recall, there was no statement referencing the Palestinians in that declaration regarding Jerusalem, as the capitol of Israel.

If Obama's position varies from our official platform, I'll be surprised.

I do think our "Israel plank" exceeds existing "agreements," that aren't in force.

[redstate_democrat]

2. Thanks for kicking. I'm really interested in knowing.

I've read, and reread Obama's factsheet on Israel on his site, but it is all very general.

[WinkyDink]

3. Well, we know your stance. I hope Obama disagrees with it.

[redstate_democrat]

5. Why?

[stray cat]

4. If its a non-starter for both sides - there will be no palestinian state

And the current situation continues. If that is preferable its their call....

[redstate_democrat]

7. It's whose call?

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. The Clinton parameters of December 23, 2000 and the subsequent Taba talks of January 2001

called for the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital and the Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem under Palestinian sovereignty.

I cannot imagine that Sen. Obama would retreat from that position advanced by the previous Democratic administration.

In that Sen. Obama has pledged that from day one that he will work to bring Israelis and Palestinians together and given that not one sane or rational person could possibly believe that the conflict could possibly be resolved without East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, if one supports a two-state solution. (I think it is fair to assume that Sen. Obama is not endorsing a single-democratic state solution.) Thus I have to take it that Sen. Obama would back a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem - given that every knowledgeable person without exception agrees that this is an essential part of the two-state solution and bringing the Israelis and Palestinians together.

Sen. Obama also spoke in Berlin of removing the walls that separate Muslims, Christians and Jews. In that to oppose a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem would be tantamount to supporting a permanent and never-ending conflict between the Muslim world and Israel and also the Muslim world and the West, I have to assume that Sen. Obama would support this minimal requirement for lasting peace. Unless Sen. Obama is supporting a single-democratic state or supports internationalizing Jerusalem. I think it is fair to say that a single-democratic state or internationalizing Jerusalem is not Sen. Obama's position.

Still Sen. Obama has not made a clear and definitive statement. Nor do I expect he would in an election year. Even President Clinton waited until he had less than thirty days left of his final term in office and the elections were over before he made a truly clear and definitive statement. I would hope and pray for the sake of humanity and for the sake of peace in the world, that Sen. Obama follows through on his pledge to work from day one to bring Israelis and Palestinians together and I hope and pray that he will have the moral courage and political will to clearly and definitively advance the necessary steps to advance a just and lasting peace.

[redstate_democrat]

8. Thank you for answering my question and making sense unlike some others.

I thought that the two state solution was the consensus among most people. I thought everyone understood that the Palestinians have insisted that East Jerusalem be their capital, and that this is an important aspect of achieving an agreement. To just say that if the Palestinians don't accept ALL of Jerusalem being made the capital of Israel then they have to stick it or keep the situation as is does not appreciate the gravity of the harm being done to both sides. A negotiation has to have a give and take on both sides. What would be the "give" on Israel's side if ALL of Jerusalem were to be made the capital of Israel? We have to be realistic here.

[dansolo]

9. Frankly I believe that Jerusalem shouldn't belong to any country.

It should be its own independent city-state, like the Vatican.

[redstate_democrat]

10. Really? Who would run it?

I'm for whatever will appease both sides because truly, unless both sides feel that the agreement is fair, then nothing will change. If neither side having control over it will appease both sides, then have at it that way.

[SoCalDem]

11. What would we do if Israel thought our capitol should be NYC?

It used to be, once.. as did Philapelphia.. We need to BUTT OUT of other country's goings on.. They should decide what city is their capitol, and it's none of our business..

[redstate_democrat]

12. I actually agree with you. However, presidents of this country have

considered it their business to make statements about what they think should happen in Israel, claiming it be part of U.S. national security. Obama has stated that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. I just want clarification on what he meant. He has clarified to some extent that he meant no fences or physical partitions, but I want to know, since he's offering his opinion, what he thinks should happen with East Jerusalem in regards to Palestine, and if when he says "Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel", he means all of it.