Jewish Right To Keep Up Pressure On Jerusalem

In the wake of Sen. Barak Obama’s “undivided Jerusalem” comment before AIPAC last week, groups on the right hope to lock both presidential candidates into positions that go beyond current U.S. policy. Getty Images

by James D. Besser
Washington Correspondent

Sen. Barack Obama’s speech to a pro-Israel lobby group last week thrust the explosive issue of Jerusalem into the middle of the hotly contested presidential campaign — and Jewish Republicans and activists who oppose compromise on the city say they will work hard to keep it there.

“Sen. Obama made it an issue by highlighting it in the AIPAC speech, so now it’s not just the issue, but whether the candidates, both Obama and McCain, speak clearly and consistently about that issue,” said Nathan Diament, political director for the Orthodox Union. The group is at the center of the mounting effort against any compromise on Jerusalem’s borders, a position that puts it at odds with both the Bush administration and the current Israeli

government.

Groups on the right, believing that Obama opened a door when he spoke of an “undivided Jerusalem” last week, hope to lock both presidential candidates into positions that go beyond current U.S. policy.

“The game plan here is to try to make it politically untenable for an American president to play the role of honest broker and mediator,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, director of the new J Street lobby and political action committee, which supports candidates who favor a more robust peace process. “They are attempting to inject this into the political process and make it costly for candidates to support what has traditionally been U.S. policy.”

Ben-Ami said Jerusalem is becoming “a hot-button issue in a very contested presidential election. It’s not surprising people are using it to score political points, but I think it’s irresponsible and a disservice to the people of Israel and to the Palestinians.”

Several prominent Orthodox activists said pressing the Jerusalem issue in the elections makes sense because of strong feelings in their community about the issue — and because Obama put it on the table.

Jerusalem is also part of the partisan game as the Republicans work to shore up their Jewish base and seek to portray the presumptive Democratic nominee as a flip-flopper in the wake of his clarifications of last week’s comments.

“The Obama flip-flop on Jerusalem shows to the electorate that he is just another politician who will say anything to any group in order to get elected,” said Matthew Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC).

Democrats counter that the Republicans have a worse record of changing their views on Jerusalem — starting with President Bush’s unfulfilled 2000 promise to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem as soon as he was inaugurated.

“In 2000 [the RJC] ran ads accusing Al Gore of being anti-Israel because unlike Gov. George W. Bush he refused to begin the process of moving the embassy his first day in office,” said Ira Forman, director of the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC). “When Inauguration Day came and President Bush did not lift a finger to move the embassy they said nothing. ... What are they saying about John McCain’s recent statements that he believes the embassy should move? Do they thing they can bamboozle the community a second time?”

In other words: the Jerusalem issue is now front and center in the campaign for Jewish votes.

In a well-received address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that hit most pro-Israel touchstones, Obama seemed to go beyond current U.S. policy when he said “any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

The Bush administration, like its predecessor, insists that the status of Jerusalem must be decided by Israel and the Palestinians through “final-status” negotiations; that is also the policy of the current Israeli government.

Obama’s comments produced an audible stir in the AIPAC audience, anger in Arab capitals and consternation among pro-peace process groups here.

“Some of our supporters were concerned that Obama’s comments might be perceived as prejudging the current negotiations — or any future ones — over the future of Jerusalem,” said Ori Nir, spokesman for Americans for Peace Now.

But groups opposed to territorial concessions on Jerusalem moved swiftly to nail down Obama’s position — and interpret it in a way that suggested the Democratic candidate was calling for a fundamental change in U.S. policy.

The OU issued a statement praising Obama within an hour of his speech last Wednesday.

“We applaud Sen. Obama’s clear statement that, should he be elected President, he will support the holy city of Jerusalem remaining the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel and the Jewish people,” said Nathan Diament in the statement, noting also that Sen. John McCain “has expressed an equal commitment to Jerusalem as well.”

California State University political scientist Raphael Sonenshein said that fast response reflected a political technique that is becoming more common in the Internet and cable news age.

“If people hear what they want to hear from a candidate, they try to lock it in right away, and try to take advantage of the fact that in American politics, we punish people for changing their minds, or saying they didn’t mean what they said initially,” he said.

Obama’s statement about an “undivided” Jerusalem may have been meant as a simple applause line before a pro-Israel activist audience, he said. But activist groups with an interest in the Jerusalem issue quickly moved in to invest it with more meaning and make it harder for the candidate to change course in the face of the controversy it caused.

Within hours, Obama aides were telling reporters their candidate was not suggesting Jerusalem should be off the negotiating table.

“There’s nothing inconsistent in what he said in the speech and what he has said previously,” said one. “Jerusalem is a final status issue; the parties themselves are going to have to negotiate its status in a way both can live with.”

But Obama believes “two priorities should apply to any outcome,” this aide said. “Jerusalem must remain Israel’s capital. And it should not be redivided, the way it was divided between 1948 and 1967.”

Some groups were “intentionally overstating the meaning” of what Obama said to press a specific agenda on the Jerusalem issue, this Obama backer said.

Speaking on CNN, Obama himself said that “obviously it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations. My belief is that as a practical matter it would be very difficult to execute. And I think that it is smart for us to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in old Jerusalem. But Israel has a legitimate claim on that city.”

With those clarifications, the OU issued yet another statement agreeing with Obama that “the re-division of Jerusalem is impractical” and that “we must ensure that people of every faith have access to all of the extraordinary religious sites of Jerusalem.”

But such access, the group said, “has only existed with Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty.”

While the OU proclaimed itself somewhat satisfied with Obama’s evolving position, Jewish Republicans went on the attack.

“Barack Obama’s attempt to use buzzwords to impress pro-Israel leaders has already backfired,” said RJC’s Brooks. “Barack Obama’s reversal on Jerusalem, 24 hours after his AIPAC speech, demonstrates why the Jewish community has doubts and fears about an Obama presidency.”

GOP sources say the perception that Obama backed away from full-throated support for an “undivided” Jerusalem will be a major arrow in their partisan quiver as they try to undercut Obama’s standing with Jewish swing voters — even though both President Bush and McCain agree that the status of Jerusalem is up to Israel and the Palestinians to decide.

Asked about Jerusalem last week, McCain said “Jerusalem is undivided. Jerusalem is the capital. And we should move our embassy to Jerusalem before anything else happens. The subject of Jerusalem itself will be addressed in negotiations by the Israeli government and people.”

But analysts say that for all the expected intensity of the Jerusalem issue in the campaigns, it is unlikely to sway more than a fringe of Jewish voters.

“The number of votes at play here is quite small and ... most folks will define Obama in a way that accords with their pre-existing preferences,” said University of Florida political scientist Ken Wald. “Moreover, we all know that Jerusalem is already divided but the divisions are informal and extra-legal.”

Lee Cowen, a Republican political consultant, said Jewish voters are unlikely to be influenced by promises on Jerusalem most no longer believe.

“People who follow this know the Jerusalem question comes up every four years,” he said.

“Every candidate professes to be either in favor of moving the embassy or keeping the city undivided. I’m not diminishing the importance of Jerusalem, but what the candidates are really doing is checking the Jerusalem box.”

But after they are elected, he said, candidates quickly abandon those promises as they confront the complex realities of U.S. policy in the region.

“My view is that most Jewish voters won’t take this too seriously,” Cowen said. “What they care about is which candidate is best for Israel’s inherent security? I think that’s going to be the basis of the Republican strategy.”

Westchester Jewish Conference

Westchester’s Jewish Community Relations Organization