March 24th, 2010
By Leo Rennert, American Thinker
Obama promised to be Israel’s best ally and promised that Jerusalem would remain undivided… I guess he didn’t mean that
What a difference a couple of years make.
Back in early 2008, when both Obama and Hillary Clinton were competing for the Democratic presidential nomination, they courted Jewish voters big time at AIPAC’s annual policy conference.
Their 2008 comments and pledges of all-out support of Israel now ring quite hollow in light of their unrelenting pressures and criticisms of that nation.
Let’s start with Obama. In his AIPAC address two years ago, he sought to allay concerns and reservations among Israel-supporters about how he would deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if he became president. To win over the doubters, Obama declared that as far as he was concerned, Jerusalem must remain Israel’s “undivided” capital. Big cheers and sighs of relief from his AIPAC audience.
…Except that almost as soon as he left the conference hall, Obama’s campaign put out a correction that he hadn’t meant to say what he did say and that Jerusalem’s fate would still have to be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians. By declaring that the city should remain “undivided,” Obama simply meant that it wouldn’t be marred by the kind of ugly barriers that sliced through Jerusalem before 1967.
For many Israel-supporters, Obama’s lightning-quick turnabout marked a turning point — from bending over backwards to give him the benefit of the doubt that his Israel-hating pastor, the Rev. Wright, really hadn’t had any influence on his thinking, to viewing him as a politician whose support of Israel was definitely in the very doubtful column. This is especially true since in the run-up to the 2008 campaign, Obama gladly accepted the national backing of his church — the United Church of Christ — without ever challenging its fierce anti-Israel stance. With Obama, the past was prelude.