Obama Reverses Course On Jerusalem

A colleague of mine spent the last five days at the conference sponsored by AIPAC. He is himself a conservative who will be voting for John McCain. He told me that he felt the conference was split relatively evenly among Democrats and Republicans. He said that he found Obama to be duplicitous and misleading, but also, to be an outstanding speaker. He said that for the most part folks at AIPAC were impressed with the speech. Of course, Obama gave them plenty to be impressed with. Here is a bit of his speech.

I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat – from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As President, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade – investments to Israel's security that will not be tied to any other nation. First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward, we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO. And I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world.

...

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.

I have no illusions that this will be easy. It will require difficult decisions on both sides. But Israel is strong enough to achieve peace, if it has partners who are committed to the goal. Most Israelis and Palestinians want peace, and we must strengthen their hand. The United States must be a strong and consistent partner in this process – not to force concessions, but to help committed partners avoid stalemate and the kind of vacuums that are filled by violence. That's what I commit to do as President of the United States.

...

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.

It didn't even take two days before he back tracked on a central point he made at AIPAC. Obama quickly backtracked on his position regarding Jerusalem.

"Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

Though he followed up with this...

Obama said "as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute" a division of the city. "And I think that it is smart for us to -- to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city."

Of course, it is ultimately up to the two parties to negotiate everything, but Barack Obama doesn't understand Israel very well if he doesn't know that Israel would never accept any settlement agreement that doesn't include Jerusalem, all of Jerusalem, as its capital in whole. Thus, what does that support Israel would want to know is whether or not he would back Israel in that claim.

The two comments taken together continue a troubling pattern of obfuscation and vague and difficult to understand explanations. The question is not whether or not the two parties need to agree on a settlement. The question is whether or not Barack Obama would back up Israel in any negotiation that included all of Israel as its capital. At this point, that commitment is unclear.

This shifting position is remarkable similar to the manner in which he softened his position on meeting with Iran. Here is what he said at the Youtube debate.

Barack Obama's original answer seemed crystal clear: last July, asked whether he would meet with the "leaders" of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea "without precondition," during his first year as president, he quickly answered yes.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has come under fire from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., over whether and how to engage rogue nations

"I would," Obama, D-Ill., said at the CNN/YouTube debate. "And the reason is this: that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."

Now, here is how he described his plans on negotiating with Iran at AIPAC.

We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests. We have no time to waste. We cannot unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have tried limited, piecemeal talks while we outsource the sustained work to our European allies. It is time for the United States to lead.

There will be careful preparation. We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress. Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as President of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing – if, and only if – it can advance the interests of the United States.

Of course, at youtube, the notion of not talkin as some sort of punishment was ludicrous. Now, he will only talk at a time and place of his choosing, and only if it can advance the interests of the U.S. At youtube, he faced a younger more idealistic audience. At AIPAC, he faced a pro Israel audience and suddenly we have an evolution of his position that is no longer recognizable. The same thing just happened with his stance towards Jerusalem.

This is of course the exact sort of politicking that Obama claims to be against. He comes to AIPAC and makes a strong pro Israel statement. Then, he gets heat from the left wing of his own constituency and suddenly the statement is amended and now no one knows what he wants to do. This is frankly the exact sort of pandering that he claims he is above.