Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Law Students Blogs -> Expressio Unius

Law Students

: Expressio Unius

Eye Roll for Israel

Obama told an AIPAC meeting a few weeks ago that he wanted to see an "undivided" Jerusalem.

That was big news to Jews and Zionists, who recognize the word "undivided" to mean that a future Palestinian state, if it comes into existence, won't have its capitol in East Jerusalem (such that West Jerusalem would remain in Israeli hands).

The statement, to say the least, was met with positive reviews at the AIPAC meeting. But it wasn't met so hotly in the Palestinian world:

The comment angered Palestinians, who want East Jerusalem, captured by Israel in 1967, as the capital of a future state. "He has closed all doors to peace," Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said after the June 4 speech.

But it turns out, in a stroke of startling naivete, Obama had no idea the word "undivided" had any special significance in the conflict.

Daniel Kurtzer, who advises Obama on the Middle East, said Tuesday at the Israel Policy Forum that Obama's comment stemmed from "a picture in his mind of Jerusalem before 1967 with barbed wires and minefields and demilitarized zones."

"So he used a word to represent what he did not want to see again, and then realized afterwards that that word is a code word in the Middle East," Kurtzer said.

Wow, that is bad. And apparently, NONE of his Middle East advisors, or speech writers, told him that using the word would be incredibly misleading to the AIPAC audience?

First, let me say my gut reaction is that this was a straight pander to AIPAC. Why else would Obama make a big deal of wanting Jersualem not have mine fields or demilitarized zones? Did he think those things existed today? Did he think there was a strong pro-mine field group that needed to be taken on squarely?

No. Obama was called out on it, and is now just backtracking. But obviously I'm not in his head, and maybe he is just incredibly poorly informed on the subject.

But he can't have it both ways.

Kurtzer said it was unfortunate that so much time was being spent dwelling on one word of a 30-minute speech, "but it does not indicate any kind of naivete about foreign affairs."

No dude, it definitely does.

You can either say you knew you were saying something very important or you didn't. If you knew it, but didn't mean it, it was a straight pander. If you didn't know it, you're incredibly naive.

Full post as published by Expressio Unius on June 18, 2008 (boomark / email).