Emily Litella at AIPAC

At AIPAC, Barack Obama said he wanted to be clear:

“Let me be clear.  Israel’s security is sacrosanct.  It is non-negotiable.  The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper – but 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.”

Twenty-four hours later, his clear remarks had to be “clarified”:

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama did not rule out Palestinian sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem when he called for Israel’s capital to remain "undivided," his campaign told The Jerusalem Post Thursday.

[A] campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties" as part of "an agreement that they both can live with."

"Two principles should apply to any outcome," which the adviser gave as: "Jerusalem remains Israel’s capital and it’s not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967."

He refused, however, to rule out other configurations, such as the city also serving as the capital of a Palestinian state or Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods.

"Beyond those principles, all other aspects are for the two parties to agree at final status negotiations," the Obama adviser said.

So by “undivided,” Obama actually meant partitioned. 

Those who took the man of words at his word did so at their peril.  It won’t happen again.

(hat tip:  Richard Baehr)