Hillary Clinton against dividing Jerusalem

Clinton vs. Clinton on Israel:

To coincide with the Jewish New Year, fresh statements are coming out of some presidential campaigns reaffirming the candidates' 'pro-Israel' credentials. It's the kind of thing that stretches the thread between domestic political posturing and smart policy prescriptions to a snapping point. It is almost redundant to note that the content of these declarations have precious little to do with advancing what is good for Israel, or, for that matter, US interests.

But one sentence from the Hillary Clinton press release of September 10 stands out. (Curiously, the the statement is not up on Clinton's campaign website.)  In staking out her position on "Standing with Israel against terrorism," Hillary Clinton defends Israel's right to exist with "... an undivided Jerusalem as its capital." Oddly enough, this places her in direct contradiction with the plan put forward by a certain President Bill Clinton in December 2000.

I doubt she has a one-state solution in mind, either.

Comments

[alan willis]

I thoroughly agree with Hillary Clinton’s comment about Jerusalem being (and remaining) the undivided capital of Israel.
I have a very strong suspicion that if East Jerusalem became part of a Palestinian state it would be used as a launch pad for missiles that could reach many parts of Israel, if not the whole country.

There is another reason why the Arabs want to control East Jerusalem. Suleiman the Magnificent blocked up the two-arched Golden Gate in the Old City wall to prevent Jesus returning through it, The Mount of Olives is considered part of East Jerusalem, and according to the bible Jesus will land on the Mount of Olives when He returns and then proceed into Jerusalem. If this is in Arab control they believe He will not be able to return!!!!