Where does Barack Obama stand on Jerusalem? It depends on which day you ask him

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Candidates. Be consistent. Use the same message to every audience, especially when we have the Internet to run down every public appearance. Case in point is the following which I received from the Republican Jewish Coalition:

Barack Obama’s Shifting Views on Jerusalem Are Reckless

Washington, D.C. (October 16, 2008) — The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) has released the latest in an ongoing series of national advertisements. These ads are part of a substantial advertising campaign undertaken by the RJC.

The new ad highlights the Sen. Barack Obama’s flip-flop on Jerusalem:

On Wednesday, Sen. Barack Obama supported an undivided Jerusalem.

On Thursday, he did not.

At the annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Sen. Obama said Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel. (Haaretz.com, June 5, 2008)

The very next day, Barack Obama changed his tune.

Facing criticism from the Palestinian Authority and Arab nations, Sen. Barack Obama said the future of Jerusalem would have to be negotiated by Israel and the Palestinians. (WashingtonPost.com, June 6, 2008)

In just twenty-four hours, Sen. Obama changed his position on this issue of critical importance to Israel and to Jews all over the world. Obama called his support for an undivided Jerusalem a “poor phrasing” of words. (Jerusalem Post, July 14, 2008)

Obama is a gifted public speaker. He knows that words matter. The Palestinians and the Arab nations are listening to Obama’s words. So must we.

Barack Obama should know Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It must remain undivided. Undivided, not just on Wednesdays, but every day.

RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said, “One issue which unites the vast majority of the American Jewish community is that Jerusalem is and must remain ‘the undivided capital of Israel.’ Senator Obama is a savvy politician and a careful speaker. To use such a meaningful phrase in speaking to a Jewish audience and then backtrack on the issue casts doubt on the sincerity of his original words.”

“Not only does this flip-flop raise concern in the Jewish community about Obama’s position on Jerusalem,” said Brooks, “it raises a serious question whether, if Obama were to become president, American foreign policy would shift from day to day in a manner that would harm our security and our interests abroad. Our alliances with good friends like Israel, and our policies with regard to states that pose a threat to the U.S., would be compromised by the kind of reckless changes in position that Obama demonstrated in his remarks on Jerusalem.”

About Larry Gilbert