In the course of Obama's winding interview with Jeffrey Goldberg yesterday, there was very little discussion of the substantive issues that impede a comprehensive settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians. Obama briefly touched on Israeli settlements, which "at this juncture are not helpful" he said, but made no mention of the security fence, or right of return, or the final status of Jerusalem. What are his positions on these issues? Another Obama advisor speaks out:

Daniel Kurtzer, former ambassador to Israel and advisor of U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama, said Tuesday that Jerusalem must be included in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

"It will be impossible to make progress on serious peace talks without putting the future of Jerusalem on the table," Kurtzer said in a conference organized by the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute (JPPPI).

Kurtzer, who has been appointed Obama's advisor for the Middle East, said that future governments will have to deal with the issue of Jerusalem, as opposed to the current Israeli administration which is not.

JPPPI head and Winograd war panel member Yechezkel Dror said that Jerusalem must become the cultural center of the Jewish people.

Kurtzer said in response that "before we do that, we must first accept a number of facts and the political reality of Arabs who live in East Jerusalem who do not feel part of the city."

Jerusalem, by Israeli law, is the undivided capital of Israel, and there's no reason to believe the next government will be any more willing to deal on this point than the last. The J Street contingent will be thrilled to hear that Obama's advisors have plans to force that government into making painful concessions regardless, but it's unclear whether Obama shares these views. Would an Obama administration redraw the map of Jerusalem on its own? What if that was the only way to heal the "constant sore" that "infects all of our foreign policy"?