Did Obama Take a Page Out of HRC’s Playbook on Jerusalem?

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


Reuters is reporting angry Palestinian reaction to Barack Obama’s statement yesterday at AIPAC that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” In response Mahmoud Abbas told reporters, “This statement is totally rejected,” and Abbas aide Saeb Erekat said Obama “has closed all doors to peace.”

Saying “Jerusalem” and “undivided” in the same sentence is an easy applause line at AIPAC, but we have to remember that when it comes to statements about Jerusalem, syntax is everything. In her official statement on Jerusalem, Hillary Clinton went so far as to use the words “undivided” and “capital” in the same clause: “Hillary Clinton believes that Israel’s right to exist … with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital … must never be questioned.” But as was pointed out to me in April, even Hillary’s stronger formulation left some wiggle room:

Well, [Clinton’s statement] is strong, but if people are determined to be a little bit creative in the way they interpret these things, ‘undivided’ sometimes literally means ‘don’t put the barbwire back up,'” said William Quandt, a professor of politics at the University of Virginia and a longtime observer of America’s role in the Arab-Israeli conflict. “In 1967 there was a divided Jerusalem,” he added, referring to the period before the 1967 war when Jerusalem was physically divided, a state of affairs to which no one wants to return.

Bottom line: The Jerusalem bit was hardly the worst section of Obama’s address, which Dana Milbank described today as the “full Monty” of “a pandering performance.”

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest