Unknown Error creating file '/afs/hcoop.net/user/z/za/za/zacha/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/ttftitles/cache/1518f884b19c919bb24bfdec422ebc0b.png'.Obama on Jerusalem

The Arab world has been shocked by Obama’s speech to the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee yesterday. What shocked them (and surprised me) is apparently the ending claim from this key paragraph:

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.

Israel’s security being important? Good. Palestinians needing a viable state? Good, and I trust Obama’s sincerity and ability to facilitate that goal much more than Bush or McCain’s.

Preserving Israel’s “identity as a Jewish state”? I have more doubts about that, since I’m pretty sure that’s code for denying Palestinian refugees the right to return to their former homes within Israel (which some argue would make Jewish Israelis a minority), but the complications here are rather over my head, and it’s a relatively mainstream sentiment within U.S. politics (for whatever that’s worth).

But saying Jerusalem will be both undivided and the capital of Israel (apparently ruling out any “international city” solution) seems more uncritically pro-Israel than I expected of him.

Update: A Kos diarist agrees.

Update 2: Apparently he didn’t mean politically undivided, but not divided in an extreme, checkpoints-and-barbed-wire sense.