The lessons are for all those who
are passionately committed to being Democrats and have never voted anything
but... and for those who still want to believe that Obama and the
Democratic party are pro-Israel.
The news that a host
of planks supportive of Israel, which were in the Democratic platform in
2008, had been cut should have done it for those who long to think of Obama as
"pro-Israel."
I covered that ground on September
5, and you can review it here:
http://arlenefromisrael.squarespace.com/current-postings/2012/9/7/september-5-2012-its-not-too-late.html
~~~~~~~~~~
But it's only gotten worse for the
credibility of the party since then. What became apparent is that the
president and party leaders were so disturbed by the negative press the platform
was getting that a mandate came down from Obama to amend it, so that
Jerusalem would be recognized as the undivided capital of Israel.
The amendment required a 2/3
voice vote to pass. When Chair Antonio Villaraigosa, Mayor of Los Angeles, called for the vote,
it was apparent to anyone listening that the Yeas and Nays were roughly
equal. And so he called for a voice vote again. And a third
time. But even though it continued to remain clear that there were
not 2/3 of the delegates in favor of recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's
capital, Villaraigosa declared the amendment passed, at which point there were
boos from some of the delegates.
As if this was not pathetic enough, it must be noted that mention
of God had been left out of the platform as well, and was to be reinstated
by virtue of that same amendment. So the
delegates were also booing mention of God.
~~~~~~~~~~
This would be something of a joke, if the implications were
not so serious. However you frame it, the Democrats made a laughing stock
of themselves that day at the Convention.
You can see the video of this
event here:
~~~~~~~~~~
Following the "vote," party spokespersons then let it be known
that the president ordered that mention of Jerusalem put into the platform
because this is his own personal belief (not, you understand, because it
was politically expedient).
"The platform is being amended to
maintain consistency with the personal views expressed by the President and in
the Democratic Party platform in 2008,” declared Party Chair Debbie Wasserman
Schultz (about whom more below).
"Personal views expressed by the President," my
foot. How gullible do
party leaders think we all were. For starters -- is there anyone who
really imagines that if Obama believed Jerusalem was Israel's undivided
capital it would not have been in the platform in the first
place?
~~~~~~~~~~
But let's look at a bit of recent
history:
Four years ago, when Obama was
campaigning, he came before AIPAC and declared his support for Jerusalem as
Israel's undivided capital. Less than one day later, a member of his
campaign staff "explained" that what he meant was that Jerusalem would be
the capital of two states, but there would be no barbed wired, no check points
between the two capitals, so that people would be able to move back and
forth.
~~~~~~~~~~
This year there have been a number
of instances in which the Obama administration was caught in statements or
actions that denied Jerusalem the status as capital of Israel.
This spring, a State Department press release stated, "Acting Under Secretary
for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Kathleen Stephens is traveling to
Algiers, Doha, Amman, Jerusalem, and Israel from March 23 to
April 5 to meet with a broad cross-section of government
officials..." (Emphasis added)
Here Jerusalem isn't even recognized as being part of Israel, capital or not.
Here Jerusalem isn't even recognized as being part of Israel, capital or not.
On July 26th, Obama's press
secretary Jay Carney refused to identify Jerusalem as Israel's
capital:
Carney's position (i.e.,
Obama's position) is that this is a final status issue to be
determined via negotiations. But there's a huge flaw in this
position: According to "two state" mythology, Jerusalem is to be the
capital to two states, with "east" Jerusalem belonging to the Arabs and "west"
Jerusalem to Israel. But then the Obama administration should have no
trouble saying that "West" Jerusalem is Israel's capital. What Obama is
doing is nodding to the less explicit but more honest goal of the
PA of controlling ALL of Jerusalem.
~~~~~~~~~~
Democratic Party Chair Debbie
Wasserman Schultz maintains that the plank on Jerusalem was left out
of the platform due to a "technical oversight."
I am not making this up, I could
not.
How did it happen? The
platform is "many pages long."
She actually says this with a
straight face, and I want to thank her for the laugh she gave me, although I
don't think the Democrats should be laughing.
~~~~~~~~~~
Wasserman Schultz also managed to
say, not once but about half-a-dozen times in the course of a brief statement
how proud she is of Obama's strong pro-Israel stance.
Thus I must point out that this
great friend of Israel has allowed significant omissions in the platform to
stand: It still does not say that Hamas must be isolated or that
"Palestinian refugees" must settle in a Palestinian state (i.e., not in Israel).
Good old Obama.
~~~~~~~~~~
Barry Rubin's analysis of what the
Democratic platform really means for Israel merits a careful reading. The
problems are deep and serious. (Emphasis added):
"This platform is a combination of
'we love Israel' rhetoric (put in by the politicians?) with some serious policy
problems (put in by their advisors?).
"The Democratic response has been denial. Oh, no, there is nothing new or different and the platform corresponds with standard U.S. policy. The first half of that statement is a lie...
"The Democratic response has been denial. Oh, no, there is nothing new or different and the platform corresponds with standard U.S. policy. The first half of that statement is a lie...
"Moreover, this is not some case
of working with the left-of-center in Israeli politics. The key issues with this
platform go against the Israeli consensus, not just Likud preferences. Finally,
while more amusing than damaging, there’s a lot of bragging about things
attributed to Obama that are either standard U.S. policy under his predecessors
or due to bipartisan action in Congress...
"--There is no explicit reference
to the Gaza Strip and Hamas, except for the anti-rocket system. Previously, the
platform called for isolating Hamas. Obama undermined this by demanding a
reduction in Israeli sanctions after the flotilla incident. By helping a new,
Muslim Brotherhood government take power in Egypt—a regime allied to Hamas—Obama
has made this the most dangerous front for Israel. The Democratic
platform suggests that the party recognizes no specific danger in
Hamas.
"--There is also no reference to Hezbollah and its threat to Israel from Lebanon, again except for the anti-rocket system. This threat led to a war in 2006 and poses a constant terrorist threat.
"In other words, this is part of an overall pattern of playing down the threat of revolutionary Islamism or the idea that the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, or other Salafists and Jihadists pose some big problem...
"--There is also no reference to Hezbollah and its threat to Israel from Lebanon, again except for the anti-rocket system. This threat led to a war in 2006 and poses a constant terrorist threat.
"In other words, this is part of an overall pattern of playing down the threat of revolutionary Islamism or the idea that the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, or other Salafists and Jihadists pose some big problem...
"For me, the most offensive
passage is this one:
"'The President's consistent support for Israel's right to defend itself and his steadfast opposition to any attempt to delegitimize Israel on the world stage are further evidence of our enduring commitment to Israel's security.'
"'The President's consistent support for Israel's right to defend itself and his steadfast opposition to any attempt to delegitimize Israel on the world stage are further evidence of our enduring commitment to Israel's security.'
"In fact, no president has done more to do less about fighting the delegitimization of Israel by his own statements and actions than has Obama. And in some cases, especially regarding Gaza, he has not really supported Israel’s right to defend itself in practice...
"Finally, past Democratic platforms have clearly taken
Israel's side, making it clear that they viewed Israel as the party sincerely
trying to resolve the dispute and the other side obstructing a solution. Despite
some of its language, this platform is neutral
basically...
"...this is a party dominated by a top-down
group far more to the left, less friendly to Israel, run more by the
Progressive Caucus types in Congress, and using 'experts' who are often
openly hostile to Israel. They put in the boilerplate to keep the suckers--and
party moderates--happy but also subtly signal that they don't mean
it."
~~~~~~~~~~
Committed Democrats and Obama supporters, I hope you've been taking
notes.
~~~~~~
©
Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner,
functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be
reproduced only
with
proper attribution.
This material
is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to
receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and
include your name in the text of the
message.
No comments:
Post a Comment