Green Room

DNC Responds to Jerusalem Platform Issue With Lies and Misdirection

posted at 8:04 am on September 5, 2012 by

The DNC released a statement regarding the omission of Jerusalem in the DNC platform, first seen on the Lid yesterday morning.

The Obama Administration has followed the same policy towards Jerusalem that previous U.S. Administrations of both parties have done since 1967,” a DNC spokeswoman said of the change in platform language. “As the White House said several months ago, the status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in final status negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians – which we also said in the 2008 platform. We will continue to work with the parties to resolve this issue as part of a two state solution that secures the future of Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland of the Jewish people.”

Sadly the DNC statement is false and misleading.  First of all the Obama policy is different from that of the Bush administration.  The Bush administration recognized Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel, but delayed the moving of the embassy till the borders of Jerusalem were determined.

In 1995 Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act endorsing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and requiring the US Embassy to move to Jerusalem. But Congress gave the executive branch an out, every six months the State Department/President can request and receive an automatic waiver. A waiver that President Bill Clinton issued to congress every six months as required.

President Bush continued the policy every six months, but in Bush’s case, he inserted into the legal jargon a sentence stating, “My Administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem.” The phrase appeared in all 16 Bush waiver notifications. The Obama administration removed that phrase from their waiver requests.

The Democratic statement in defense of the platform omission says the President believes the status of Jerusalem should be a final status issue, the 2008 platform included that language:

Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel.The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations.

Even the statement released by the DNC tonight admits the original platform talked about final status negotiations.  Therefore the question remains; if the old platform said the final status of Jerusalem was to be negotiated, and the President’s policy is the final status of Jerusalem is to be negotiated—why was the reference to Jerusalem being the capital of Israel removed from the 2012 DNC platform?

The Huffington Post ran a story quoting a DNC source saying the revised platform was approved by AIPAC. According to Ms Rubin that claim is  also a lie:

A source close to AIPAC, who was not authorized to speak on the record, told me this evening, “AIPAC officials were not in the room while the platform was being drafted. AIPAC did not receive or review the Middle East part of the platform.” The source continued, “Israel is our most reliable ally. ‘Jerusalem is the capital of Israel’ was part of the AIPAC submission to the platform committee.” In other words, the sources talking to Huffington Post are lying, according to multiple sources….

….One pro-Israel Jewish leader not associated with AIPAC e-mails that the language was probably an attempt to sync up the platform with President Obama’s rhetoric and language. Recently, the administration caught flak for refusing to identify Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. To be consistent, the refusal to identify the capital of the Jewish state would have necessitated removing from the platform language that then-candidate Barack Obama used in 2008, explicitly stating that Israel’s capital is Jerusalem. The notion that pro-Israel groups who publicly and privately criticized the administration’s reticence and submitted language on the capital were pleased with the platform is preposterous.

That’s the second Israel lie the Democrats got caught spewing today, the other being DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s lie about Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren saying the GOP positions were dangerous for Israel.

The Democrats are in a bind.  On one hand they are desperately trying to repair their relationship with the Jewish voters who feel alienated because of the President’s stance on Israel. Not that the GOP will receive a majority of that vote but a big shift from the 78% they received in 2008 to say 62-65% might be the difference in swing states such as Florida or Pennsylvania. On they are trying to appease the radical left part of the party which seeks to push the President’s positions even further away from what pro-Israel voters would like to see.

So they are left with this platform as a compromise, a truer reflection of the President’s policies which they need to lie about to maintain their huge Jewish electoral advantage in November.

Jeff Dunetz is Editor/Publisher of the Political Blog, The Lid

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Who cares? Israel is not the United States of America. Let her solve her own problems. There is no reason for any country other than the United States to be in an American political party’s platform.

Dante on September 5, 2012 at 8:11 AM

Dante: Who cares? You should if you like gas below $5/gallon.

If Israel goes under we lose the only stable democracy in the region and leave the entire middle east to become a muslim caliphate.

And you think they’ll stop with Israel? Read the Koran – you’re next.

sultanp on September 5, 2012 at 8:40 AM

Dante on September 5, 2012 at 8:11 AM

America supports her friends, take a lesson from her.

thebrokenrattle on September 5, 2012 at 9:17 AM

And dante shows why luap nor has no business being in charge of a hot dog stand let alone the country.
Then again, we know how much the ronulans love jooooos!

Sad that in this day and age there are people like dante and luap who think we can hide under our beds, pretend there isn’t a world outside, and remain safe.

Hard Right on September 5, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Dante: Who cares? You should if you like gas below $5/gallon.

If Israel goes under we lose the only stable democracy in the region and leave the entire middle east to become a muslim caliphate.

And you think they’ll stop with Israel? Read the Koran – you’re next.

sultanp on September 5, 2012 at 8:40 AM

Oh, please. It has nothing to do with gas. More than 75% of US imports (which obviously doesn’t include domestic production) come from regions other than the Middle East.

“We” don’t lose anything. Israel is not a part of the United States.

America supports her friends, take a lesson from her.

thebrokenrattle on September 5, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Your idea of support is immoral. Your idea of support constitutes seizing my property through coercion and force (taxation) and redistributing my wealth to a foreign government.

Sad that in this day and age there are people like dante and luap who think we can hide under our beds, pretend there isn’t a world outside, and remain safe.

Hard Right on September 5, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Nice straw man. No one is suggesting that we hide under our beds. The suggestion is that we mind our own business and let sovereign nations handle their own business and make their own decisions.

Dante on September 5, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Dante, the murder of SIX MILLION JEWS by the Nazis is not enough for you? Perhaps you’d be happier if ALL Jews were murdered? You, sir, are a disgusting excuse for a human being.

rpjkw11 on September 5, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Dante, the murder of SIX MILLION JEWS by the Nazis is not enough for you? Perhaps you’d be happier if ALL Jews were murdered? You, sir, are a disgusting excuse for a human being.

rpjkw11 on September 5, 2012 at 10:26 AM

No one here can respond intelligently or rationally to my points, and instead has to resort to straw men, smears, and ad hominems. Get out of here with your ridiculousness.

Dante on September 5, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Into the inferno with you, Dante. You’re sadly misinformed if you think we get nothing for the money we pay to Israel. First, the money has to be used to buy American weapons, which helps create American jobs. And the cost is way lower than what Obama spends on a few bankrupt green companies. Second, Israel provides the USA with more intelligence than it gets anywhere else and in a very scary and strategic part of the world. Third, Israel does the dirty work for the US putting its own prestige and security on the line. Remember who took out Sadaam’s nuclear reactor? Which country absorbed Scud missile attacks without retaliation so as not to damage the coalition during the gulf war? Who took out Syria’s nuclear site which would have destabilized the region? And now who is the only country standing up to Iran which threatens the strategic security of the USA? Fourth, Israel shares its amazing technological advances with the USA and helps the US be stronger. Israel is the leading nation in technological warfare (Stuxneut), airport security, (though most of its best techniques are ignored by politically correct Obama and his minions, others have been adopted), improvement of weapons systems developed by the US, development of new weapons systems shared with the US (such as anti-missile systems), and where do you think your cell phone came from Dante? Is that alone worth the relationship we have with Israel? Lastly, as others have said, Israel is a bastion of democracy in a sea of totalitarianism. To the horror of Dems, it is the only country for hundreds of miles that allows gay rights, free elections and freedom for all its peoples. Why do you think Arabs want to live there? Please become informed Dante. What you advocate is bad for America.

Incredulous1 on September 5, 2012 at 10:38 AM

No one here can respond intelligently or rationally to my points, and instead has to resort to straw men, smears, and ad hominems. Get out of here with your ridiculousness.

Dante on September 5, 2012 at 10:37 AM

The gauntlet has been thrown down. See my post of 10:38. I expect an intellectual response to each point.

Incredulous1 on September 5, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Into the inferno with you, Dante. You’re sadly misinformed if you think we get nothing for the money we pay to Israel. First, the money has to be used to buy American weapons, which helps create American jobs.

Incredulous1 on September 5, 2012 at 10:38 AM

I’m going to stop you right there. You are arguing what is known as the Broken Window fallacy, which is an economic fallacy. First of all the money comes from taxpayers. That money could be used within our own economy to create things that weren’t there before, such as, in Hazlitt’s classic example, a suit. The money that I was going to spend at a tailor to create a suit for me now goes to a foreign government. I’m out money, and the tailer is out business. That suit never gets made. If this is so good for America and creates jobs, then let’s surrender all of our money to the government to be handed over to Israel or any other foreign government.

However, that money that comes from taxpayers is seized through coercion and force and handed to a foreign government. This is wealth redistribution.

Third, interventionism is a failed foreign policy, and an immoral foreign policy.

Dante on September 5, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Why not discuss the other arguments Dante? You ignored almost everything I said. Clearly what the US does is invest in Israel and the returns it gets FAR exceed the amount invested. Tell me one other investment made by government that has been as successful.

Interventionism is a failed foreign policy? Really? Tell that to the WWII veterans. How is it immoral to fight for democracy and to protect the world from tyrants? Your view of history is skewed, at best.

Incredulous1 on September 5, 2012 at 11:09 AM

. You’re sadly misinformed if you think we get nothing for the money we pay to Israel.

So what did the tailor get for my money being seized and handed to a foreign government? Nothing.

So what did I get in having my money seized and handed to a foreign government on the other side of the world? Nothing.

Dante on September 5, 2012 at 11:11 AM

If Dante is arguing against massive foreign aid in general, and that happens to include Israel, I am inclined to agree with him on that particular point, intellectually.

American taxpayer dollars should not be going to prop up anyone ….. with the exception of paying for our military to prevent piracy and invasions and such global economy destabilizing acts of violence (actual, direct military action/stabilization).

Meanwhile, however, here in the real world, we are supplying all kinds of taxpayer dollars to Islamic We Want To Annihlate Israel nations and societies (including Hamas for chrissakes) to try to appease them and/or buy their favor.

If we cut out the appeasement and bribery of Islam garbage, then I’d be fine with cutting off Israel, too, as long as it is accompanied with a credible American committment to annihilate anyone who invades Israel (like with Kuwait).

However, again in the real world, that is not going to happen. If Dante thinks the ronulans can stop our elites from continuing to appease Islam, that is what he should be focusing on. Israel is completely beside the point.

Third, interventionism is a failed foreign policy, and an immoral foreign policy.

That’s just plain wrong. And a bit deranged. Whether or not intervention works or is moral is dependent on the particular intervention and how it is done. Obviously.

fadetogray on September 5, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Why not discuss the other arguments Dante? You ignored almost everything I said. Clearly what the US does is invest in Israel and the returns it gets FAR exceed the amount invested. Tell me one other investment made by government that has been as successful.

Interventionism is a failed foreign policy? Really? Tell that to the WWII veterans. How is it immoral to fight for democracy and to protect the world from tyrants? Your view of history is skewed, at best.

Incredulous1 on September 5, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Look who’s using the leftist’s jargon: investment.

Yes, interventionism is a failed foreign policy, and yes, it is immoral. It requires wealth to be seized and spent (allegedly) on the defense of another foreign government or people. Further, it creates blowback, such as 9/11. It expends our nation’s wealth and lives when we have not been attacked or have not been under threat of imminent attack. If you scoff whenever someone describes us as an empire, then why would you be advocating for imperial actions?

It’s interesting how so-called conservatives are opposed to wealth redistribution, but anytime there is a military element involved, they are gung ho for it. Seizing my wealth and giving it to someone else is immoral. There is no getting around that. Seizing my wealth and giving it to a foreign government is immoral. Invading or attacking a foreign nation that hasn’t attacked us is immoral. Engaging in war actions against a foreign nation that hasn’t attacked us is immoral. Intervening in the affairs of foreign nations is immoral.

I didn’t read the rest of your post once you brought up the Broken Window fallacy because there was no point in reading since you immediately built your entire argument on a fallacy.

Dante on September 5, 2012 at 11:18 AM

That’s just plain wrong. And a bit deranged. Whether or not intervention works or is moral is dependent on the particular intervention and how it is done. Obviously.

fadetogray on September 5, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Moral relativism. How interesting.

Dante on September 5, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Moral relativism. How interesting.

Dante on September 5, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Yes, quite interesting. You clearly do not have any idea what moral relativism is.

fadetogray on September 5, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Yes, quite interesting. You clearly do not have any idea what moral relativism is.

fadetogray on September 5, 2012 at 11:26 AM

I have a better understanding of it than you. See above.

Dante on September 5, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Dante, since you ignore all the things we get from the money we send to Israel (and you keep asking what we got and I already told you!) I can only assume you have no rational or intelligent response to the points i made. Since you say foreign intervention is wrong when there were so many examples of when it was right (WWII, for instance)for our country, I can only assume that you are not open to a legitimate discussion of real life history that contrasts with your monolithic, unbending outlook. I have to concentrate on my work now. I was hoping for better from someone that claimed to want an intellgent, rational discussion.

Incredulous1 on September 5, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I have a better understanding of it than you. See above.

Dante on September 5, 2012 at 11:28 AM

I thought maybe when I pointed out your lack of understanding of the term you were using you would go look it up.

Recognizing that context matters is not moral relativism. It is basic intelligence. Anyone who does not understand that context always matters when looking at any meaning (including the moral meaning of a thing) is a blithering idiot.

Moral relativism is a belief that all cultures have equivalent objective standing to define morality since all “right” and “wrong” are literally defined by the culture and its definitions of the meanings of words (language).

Since all cultures have equivalent moral standing, condemnations of a culture’s morality by the members of an outside culture have no objective standing.

Moral relativism and multiculturalism go hand in hand, and they lead to lunacy like the claim that Westerners who condemn Islamic practices like polygamy and FGM are intolerant bigots.

fadetogray on September 5, 2012 at 11:45 AM

By the way, “investment” is a business term co-opted by teh Democrats to refer to government spending generally. I do not accede to their co-opting of that term. When I refer to America’s investment in Israel, it is with a view to what we get out of the money we send there. We get way more than we put in. That makes it a successful investment in the traditional sense, not the Democratic sense. Any fair-minded person without an agenda would see that it’s a good investment for our country, and you have never responded to all the good things we get from that relationship that strengthen our country and our national interests. See ya.

Incredulous1 on September 5, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Dante, since you ignore all the things we get from the money we send to Israel (and you keep asking what we got and I already told you!) I can only assume you have no rational or intelligent response to the points i made. Since you say foreign intervention is wrong when there were so many examples of when it was right (WWII, for instance)for our country, I can only assume that you are not open to a legitimate discussion of real life history that contrasts with your monolithic, unbending outlook. I have to concentrate on my work now. I was hoping for better from someone that claimed to want an intellgent, rational discussion.

Incredulous1 on September 5, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I’ve never asked once what we’ve gotten. You started off your argument with an economic fallacy, which has been the entire foundation of your argument. You have failed to address my original response, and you have failed to address any of my points explaining why interventionism is immoral. All you have done is present economic fallacies and circular reasoning, and simply repeated your claim without example. Fallacies are not rational.

Address my first response to you as well as the explanation of interventionism as immoral. And WWII is not an example of interventionism being either a correct policy or moral. Your ex cathedra pronouncements do not make your claims fact.

Dante on September 5, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Dante, you are claiming money is seized by coercion and force and given to a foreign power, intimating that we get nothing in return. You asked what the tailor got for his money and I told you what we get in return and it exceeds what we give. If you don’t like the budget process and there is plenty not to like, elect (hopefully rational) people who can change it. But remember you will weaken our country and lose all the benefits we get from investing in an amazing ally like Israel. You should stop using your cell phone if you want to be consistent with your beliefs.

Your “explanation” of why interventionism is immoral is based on seizing wealth and nothing else. Your argument is immmoral on its face and irrational. So is your statement that WW II is not an example of intervention being good or bad. Why not? The freedom of the world was threatened. it’s a perfect example of how intervention is good, moral and justified. If you think we would be better off if we were the only free country on earth, I think you need more help than I can give.

Incredulous1 on September 5, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Dante, you are claiming money is seized by coercion and force and given to a foreign power, intimating that we get nothing in return. You asked what the tailor got for his money and I told you what we get in return and it exceeds what we give. If you don’t like the budget process and there is plenty not to like, elect (hopefully rational) people who can change it. But remember you will weaken our country and lose all the benefits we get from investing in an amazing ally like Israel. You should stop using your cell phone if you want to be consistent with your beliefs.

Your “explanation” of why interventionism is immoral is based on seizing wealth and nothing else. Your argument is immmoral on its face and irrational. So is your statement that WW II is not an example of intervention being good or bad. Why not? The freedom of the world was threatened. it’s a perfect example of how intervention is good, moral and justified. If you think we would be better off if we were the only free country on earth, I think you need more help than I can give.

Incredulous1 on September 5, 2012 at 12:44 PM

The seizure of private property is theft; taxation is theft. There is no getting around this fact. Our property is handed over to a foreign government. Again, there is no getting around this fact.

I didn’t ask you what the tailor got for his money, because he never received the money to begin with. The point is lost on you, in large part because you aren’t paying attention to what you read. You are clinging to an economic fallacy that is a particular favorite of the left.

Again, you can continue to claim that we get more in return (a claim you haven’t once attempted to back up), but that doesn’t make it a fact. You cannot avoid the fact that the wealth of our citizens is seized by force and given to a foreign government. It is an indefensible position.

The budget process and cell phones are red herrings that have nothing to do with the discussion.

You continue to treat WWII as if it existed in a vacuum, not once realizing that the economic conditions we put in place following WWI (in which we most certainly intervened) was a direct cause of WWII.

You sure are generous with other people’s money, just like all neoconservatives and liberals (which are one in the same, really).

Dante on September 5, 2012 at 2:32 PM

I knew dante the loon would be all over this thread. I accurately call out his foreign policy beliefs, and of course he has no real answer.
Little hint here dante, why did we “intervene” in WWI and do you really think WWI was our fault?
It’s funny you call anyone else a liberal or the “jew” neo-con label. You yourself are little more than a type of liberal. You, like them are unable to face reality, and elevate your political champion to messiah status. Too bad it’s clear you are projecting what you ant to see onto him and not what he is. A phony and nut saying what you want to Again, due to your inability to face reality, you push for non-intervention, which is a proven failure. Like liberals you insist on pushing for the same failed ideas yet insist you are the morally and intellectually superior one. That must be why I see the majority of paultards driving clapped out pieces of sh*t and known as the weird guy at the office.

Hard Right on September 5, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Let me try that again:
I knew dante the loon would be all over this thread. I accurately call out his foreign policy beliefs, and of course he has no real answer to it.
Little hint here dante, why did we “intervene” in WWI and do you really think WWII was our fault?
It’s funny you call anyone else a liberal or the “jew” neo-con label. You yourself are little more than a type of liberal. You, like them are unable to face reality, and elevate your political champion to messiah status. Too bad it’s clear you are projecting what you want to see onto him and not what he really is. He’s a phony and a nut saying what you want to hear. Again, due to your inability to face reality, you push for non-intervention, which is a proven failure. Like liberals you insist on pushing for the same failed ideas yet insist that somehow you are the morally and intellectually superior one. That must be why I see the majority of paultards driving clapped out pieces of sh*t and avoided at the office due to being “the weird” guy.

I checked out the luap sites years ago. They cleaned them up a bit recently but certain things stood out.
Trutherism, anti-semitism, and conspiracy theories. Let’s face it, most luap nor fans are mentally ill or just want to be able to get high without consequence. Lovely party you have there.

Hard Right on September 5, 2012 at 9:23 PM