Depends on What the Meaning of "Undivided" Is

Looks like Obama's not as unreasonable on the final status of Jerusalem as he tried to imply when talking to AIPAC:

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. [...]

"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. [...]

"The Orthodox Union is extremely disappointed in this revision of Senator Obama's important statement about Jerusalem," said Nathan Diament, director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. He had sent out a release Wednesday applauding Obama's Jerusalem remarks in front of AIPAC.

It's never really been clear to me if the AIPAC, Union or Orthodox Jewish Congregations, etc. crowd really means what they're saying about this. If they had an otherwise solid deal that they felt would ensure Israeli peace and security while removing the stain of occupation from the country but it required them to give up the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, would Nathan Diament really be so crazy as to see that as the deal-breaker?

Meanwhile, for Obama this seems much worse than simply going to AIPAC and saying something more honest.