It’s not Obama’s fault no one can understand his position on Jerusalem. It’s just a “syntax” problem.
Senator Obama, in his speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, said, “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” The next day, an unnamed adviser tried to “clarify” the statement to suggest it left room for Palestinian sovereignty. On Sunday in a CNN interview, Fareed Zakaria questioned Mr. Obama about his AIPAC speech supporting Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. Mr. Zakaria asked him, “why not support the Clinton plan, which envisions a divided Jerusalem.” Mr. Obama responded, “the truth is that this was an example where we had some poor phrasing in the speech” and a reminder of the need to be “careful in terms of our syntax.” He said his point had been “simply” that “we don’t want barbed wire running through Jerusalem, similar to the way it was prior to the ’67 war. … I think the Clinton formulation provides a starting point for discussions between the parties.” Mr. Obama’s new endorsement of the Clinton plan as the “starting point” for negotiations involves much more than a problem in phrasing. He has converted his commitment at AIPAC to an “undivided” Jerusalem into support for the city’s redivision.
With respect to Iraq and Iran, Sullivan said my charge of unrepentant flip-flopping was unfair. As he put it, “The policy is what it was. The tactics shift, as they must.” Does he believe the same is true on Jerusalem? Is this just a misunderstanding on the part of Hamas, Jewish Americans, and anyone with a cursory understanding of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations?
