Zakaria Helps Obama With His Undivided Jerusalem Flip-flop
Folks that are actually paying attention to Barack Obama's many flip-flops certainly remember a whopper from early June when he told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that Jerusalem must "remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."
As this angered Palestinian groups, the junior senator from Illinois quickly reversed his position the following day.
Last Sunday, Obama appeared on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria: GPS," and instead of being challenged about this flip-flop, the host seemed to aid and abet it (photo courtesy CNN.com).
Two days later, WOR radio's Steve Malzberg exposed Zakaria's complicity by first playing what Obama said to AIPAC on June 4 (15-minute audio available here):
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.
Yet, here's how Zakaria addressed this issue with Obama on July 13:
ZAKARIA: One area where you're outside the international consensus -- and certainly, perhaps, some others -- is the statement you made in a recent speech supporting Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.
Now, why not support the Clinton plan, which envisions a divided Jerusalem, the Arab half being the capital of a Palestinian state, the Jewish half being the capital of the Jewish state?
OBAMA: You know, the truth is that this was an example where we had some poor phrasing in the speech. And we immediately tried to correct the interpretation that was given.
Amazingly, Zakaria didn't challenge this statement. Now you know why my colleague Brent Baker was so concerned in May when it was announced that this "pretty conventional liberal" was going to get his own program.
Honestly, if Obama is going to be able to explain away his major flip-flops and policy changes with a simple "we had some poor phrasing...we immediately tried to correct the interpretation," the nation probably shouldn't bother going through the time and expense of an election this November.
Readers are strongly encouraged to listen to Malzberg's entire segment on this issue.