DAYTONA BEACH SHORES -- Once again, at its convention last week, the new Democratic Party has shown its disdain for Israel. Along with the Republicans, the Democrats have traditionally been proud supporters of Israel, our only real friend, ally and supporter in the Middle East. But in recent years, the Dems have come to be dominated by their extreme left wing, led by the modern Marxist, Barack Obama.
With that profound shift to the left has come a commensurate shift away from Israel and toward the preferred position of the international socialist left, once represented by the so-called Non-Aligned Movement and perhaps best exemplified by annual massive votes against Israel in the UN General Assembly.
US relations with Israel have been strained almost from the beginning of the Obama Administration.
Issues include settlements, the status of Jerusalem, relations with the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, the “Arab Spring” and, most critically, concerns about Iran’s drive to develop nuclear weapons. Token efforts have been made by both governments to paper over their differences, at least for public consumption. But the truth is that, under Obama, the US-Israel relationship has fallen to its lowest level over fifty years.
Then came the Democratic Party Convention, where the platform writers abandoned Israel altogether.
Intentionally removed from the Party Platform were any mention of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, any prohibition against cooperation with Hamas (which is the largest terrorist organization in the Middle East, responsible for the deaths of many, many innocent Israeli civilians) and denial of the so-called Right of Return.
The latter term refers to a claim advanced by the Palestinians of a “right” to return to Israel for all those who fled Israel after the creation of the Jewish state in 1947, as well as their multitudes of descendants.
Whatever else they may be, Palestinians are prolific. If all those who claim descent from the original refugees were to return to Israel now, that country’s Jewish population would find itself awash in a vast Muslim sea. This would completely destroy the Jewish identity of the Israeli state, negating the principal reason for its foundation in the first place. This from the ruling party of Israel’s traditional friend and protector.
Fox News and others broke the story and applied relentless media pressure on the Dems. Reportedly President Obama himself, fearing the potential loss of normally reliable Jewish votes in crucial battleground states such as Florida, ordered the platform changed. A vote of two-thirds of the convention delegates is needed to change the Democratic platform.
Democratic Party Convention Chairman Villaraigosa called for a voice vote. He called for a voice vote three times. And each time it was apparent to any observer that a probable majority of delegates, but certainly way more than a third, opposed the changes and supported the absence of any reference to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. They also opposed the inclusion of the word “God” anywhere in the platform document.
Democratic Party Convention Chairman Villaraigosa called for a voice vote. He called for a voice vote three times. And each time it was apparent to any observer that a probable majority of delegates, but certainly way more than a third, opposed the changes and supported the absence of any reference to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. They also opposed the inclusion of the word “God” anywhere in the platform document.
Clearly flummoxed, Villaraigosa turned his eyes to the teleprompter, where the prior decision from on high had already been posted, and simply read the words, ramming the change down the throats of the loudly booing delegates. The proper course would have been to call for a voice vote, but this would have risked the very likely outcome of a failure to achieve the two-thirds needed to effectuate the change in the platform language.
This is what passes for democracy and respect for the rules under Barack Obama.
What this shows us is that a very substantial segment of the Democratic Party has abandoned and denounced traditional American support for Israel. They have done this in a very public way and they want their abandonment on the record. Still, it could be argued that it was the President who ordered that support for Jerusalem as Israel’s capital be returned to the platform. And indeed he did. But if he did, he must also decide not to restore the prohibition on cooperation with Hamas or the opposition to the Right of Return.
From this it follows as surely as night follows day that Barack Obama wants to keep open the possibility of American cooperation with the biggest terrorist threat to Israel. And it follows that he wants to retain the possibility of American support for the emigration into Israel of so many Muslims that the very identity of the nation would be swept away. This opens a broad window into the mind of Barack Obama.
Not Obama the American President, but Obama the Marxist, Obama the anti-colonialist and Obama who, as a boy in Indonesia, was himself a Muslim. This Obama and his party seem to have found it very easy to betray our traditional ally Israel, in the process betraying American interests as well as those of Israel.
Not Obama the American President, but Obama the Marxist, Obama the anti-colonialist and Obama who, as a boy in Indonesia, was himself a Muslim. This Obama and his party seem to have found it very easy to betray our traditional ally Israel, in the process betraying American interests as well as those of Israel.
As this is written, Obama has refused to meet in either New York or Washington with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has come to the United States pleading for clarity of purpose and policy from the American president as Israel struggles to deal with the escalating existential threat of Iranian development of a nuclear weapon and a ballistic delivery system.
For Mitt Romney, Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel. For Mitt Romney, a strong dependable relationship with Israel is the linchpin of American foreign policy in the Middle East.
For Mitt Romney, a threat of an attack on Israel is a threat to the United States of America. Mitt Romney and the Republican Party would never have countenanced any of these anti-Israeli measures. His is not a position chosen on the basis of politics, for America’s Jews traditionally vote and contribute heavily to the Democratic Party and probably will do so this year as well. Rather it is a position taken on the basis of solid American interests, on the basis of decades of mutually beneficial cooperation, on the basis of our shared cultural heritage and on the basis that one friend just stands by another in hard times.
Under Obama, the Democrats shed friends like a snake sheds scales.
For Romney and the Republicans friendship is a core value which helps to guide their decision-making. Isn’t it time that American Jewry sought a better class of friends?