The Democratic Party national platform for 2012 effectively throws Israel under the bus. Since we are dealing with politicalese–the language that professional politicians use–mindless people and sloppy readers may look at what is in the party platform and think that the DNC is still firmly in Israel’s camp. Nothing can be further from the truth. Gateway Pundit helps spell some of this out for us:
Democrats removed language recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in their 2012 convention platform. Democrats also removed language that called on the international community to isolate Hamas.
Jeff Dunetz reported on the language changes in the DNC platform.
Here is the language from the 2008 Democratic platform:
It is in the best interests of all parties, including the United States, that we take an active role to help secure a lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with a democratic, viable Palestinian state dedicated to living in peace and security side by side with the Jewish State of Israel. To do so, we must help Israel identify and strengthen those partners who are truly committed to peace, while isolating those who seek conflict and instability, and stand with Israel against those who seek its destruction. The United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and abides by past agreements. Sustained American leadership for peace and security will require patient efforts and the personal commitment of the President of the United States. The creation of a Palestinian state through final status negotiations, together with an international compensation mechanism, should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel. All understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.
And here is the language on Israel from the 2012 Democratic Platform:
It is precisely because of this commitment that President Obama and the Democratic Party seek peace between Israelis and Palestinians. A just and lasting Israeli-Palestinian accord, producing two states for two peoples, would contribute to regional stability and help sustain Israel’s identity as a Jewish and democratic state. At the same time, the President has made clear that there will be no lasting peace unless Israel’s security concerns are met. President Obama will continue to press Arab states to reach out to Israel. We will continue to support Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, which have been pillars of peace and stability in the region for many years. And even as the President and the Democratic Party continue to encourage all parties to be resolute in the pursuit of peace, we will insist that any Palestinian partner must recognize Israel’s right to exist, reject violence, and adhere to existing agreements.
It’s obvious that Israel is the big loser this year… And terrorist group Hamas is the winner.
You can see from Obama’s actions and the language that is removed from the platform what he has in mind: Jerusalem is to be handed over the the Palestinians, along with yet more Israeli territory, but without getting any true concessions from the terrorists groups and their proxies; Hamas is now seen as a valued negotiating partner, to be courted rather than spurned; and, the right of return is endorsed (effectively, this would in the long term destroy the Israeli state by making Jews a small minority there). Meanwhile, the Obama administration will ask the Arabs to be nice to Israel. How quaint. No sensible person would believe that the new position represents any kind of support for Israel. Rather, this is support for the “peace process” being pushed by the international community, a “peace process” that sees the very existence of Israel as a roadblock to regional stability and world harmony.
This reminds us very much of a reverse of Philippians 4: 8. “Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—anything that is excellent or praiseworthy” goes under the bus. Once the nice words are removed and the policies are analyzed, does Obama support anything that is truly good?