Jun 4, 2008: One line in Barack Obama's homage to Israel at this week's AIPAC convention has dominated the post-speech coverage: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel - and it must remain undivided," Obama told the cheering crowd. http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcb_jerusalem/20080606/wl_mcb_jerusalem/obamasjerusalemdivide Today: ZAKARIA: One area where you're outside the international consensus -- and certainly, perhaps, some others -- is the statement you made in a recent speech supporting Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. Now, why not support the Clinton plan, which envisions a divided Jerusalem, the Arab half being the capital of a Palestinian state, the Jewish half being the capital of the Jewish state? OBAMA: You know, the truth is that this was an example where we had some poor phrasing in the speech. And we immediately tried to correct the interpretation that was given. The point we were simply making was, is that we don't want barbed wire running through Jerusalem, similar to the way it was prior to the '67 war, that it is possible for us to create a Jerusalem that is cohesive and coherent. I was not trying to predetermine what are essentially final status issues. I think the Clinton formulation provides a starting point for discussions between the parties. And it is an example of us making sure that we are careful in terms of our syntax. But the intention was never to move away from that basic, core idea that they -- that those parties are going to have to negotiate these issues on their own, with the strong engagement of the United States. And if you look at the overall tenor of that speech and what I've said historically about this issue, you know, Israel has an interest not just in bunkering down. They've got to recognize that their long-term viability as a Jewish state is going to depend on their ability to create peace with their neighbors. The Palestinian leadership has to acknowledge that the battles that they've been fighting, and the direction that they've been going in and the rhetoric they've been employing, has not delivered for their people. And it is very hard, given the history of that region and the sense of grievance on both sides, to step back and say, let's be practical and figure out what works. But I think that's what the people of Israel and the people in the West Bank and Gaza are desperate for, is just some practical, commonsense approaches that would result in them feeling safe, secure and able to live their lives and educate their children. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/13/zakaria.obama/index.html
And it is an example of us making sure that we are careful in terms of our syntax. But the intention was never to move away from that basic, core idea that they -- that those parties are going to have to negotiate these issues on their own, with the strong engagement of the United States. And it is an example of us making sure that we are careful in terms of our syntax. But the intention was never to move away from that basic, core idea that they -- that those parties are going to have to negotiate these issues on their own, with the strong engagement of the United States. And it is an example of us making sure that we are careful in terms of our syntax. But the intention was never to move away from that basic, core idea that they -- that those parties are going to have to negotiate these issues on their own, with the strong engagement of the United States. And it is an example of us making sure that we are careful in terms of our syntax. But the intention was never to move away from that basic, core idea that they -- that those parties are going to have to negotiate these issues on their own, with the strong engagement of the United State. And it is an example of us making sure that we are careful in terms of our syntax. But the intention was never to move away from that basic, core idea that they -- that those parties are going to have to negotiate these issues on their own, with the strong engagement of the United States. And it is an example of us making sure that we are careful in terms of our syntax. But the intention was never to move away from that basic, core idea that they -- that those parties are going to have to negotiate these issues on their own, with the strong engagement of the United States.
Shocking! US Presidential candidates must be very careful what they say about Israel! Obama affirms that Israelis and Palestinians should work out the final status of Jerusalem! Shocking! US Presidential candidates must be very careful what they say about Israel! Obama affirms that Israelis and Palestinians should work out the final status of Jerusalem! Shocking! US Presidential candidates must be very careful what they say about Israel! Obama affirms that Israelis and Palestinians should work out the final status of Jerusalem! It's interesting that anyone with pro-Israeli sentiments would criticize this clarification. It is a clear and necessary accommodation to pro-Israeli public opinion and the pro-Israeli lobby.
so the usual bablat tricks you. the point is he lied. dont you get it? work together, work against echother, bomb one another, he was caught red handed with lying, thats the problem.
Exhibit A: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel - and it must remain undivided" Exhibit B: "those parties are going to have to negotiate these issues on their own" This correction indicates a zionist tug on a candidate's leash- but that's not the same as lying. It's a glimpse of the truth of the situation. The correction illustrates the common knowledge that there is a powerful Israeli influence in Washington that the candidates must heed for their political survival.
i dont know were you learned to read but this is what he had to say about your exhibit a: You know, the truth is that this was an example where we had some poor phrasing in the speech. And we immediately tried to correct the interpretation that was given. The point we were simply making was, is that we don't want barbed wire running through Jerusalem, similar to the way it was prior to the '67 war, that it is possible for us to create a Jerusalem that is cohesive and coherent. so he was lying. no matter how you slice it or dice it the dude lied.
Just so I'm clear on this: what was the lie, exactly ? I meant the part where the candidate has said something contrary to what they believe, on purpose and intending to mislead ?
