“Jerusalem – that birthplace of all our
dreams and graveyard of all our hopes”
- Christopher Hitchens
My uncle is one of those Jewish conservatives who is firmly convinced
that Barack Obama is an anti-Semite who has it in for Israel. Despite all of
the evidence to the contrary, this unshakable article of faith – Obama is
a Jew hater – is a favorite hobbyhorse of the Right. They have somehow managed to convince themselves that more Jews would vote Republican (and for Mitt Romney)
if only they removed their blinders and recognized Obama’s obvious antipathy
toward Israel. It’s so obvious to them
that it requires no evidence or explanation.
But they try anyway. Four years
ago, they insisted that President Obama was secret Muslim who was born in Kenya
and was taught to hate Jews by militant leftists in places like Columbia University
and Trinity Church in Chicago. That didn't work so well. In the 2008 Presidential election, 78% of
Jewish Americans voted for Obama. This time around, those same conservatives are
still looking for something…anything, to back up Romney’s assertion
that Obama has thrown Israel “under the bus.” Seek and ye shall find.
For many Jewish Americans - religious or secular, republican or democrat - the security and plight of
Israel is deeply important. Has the Obama administration been a strong supporter
of Israel? By any reasonable measure, it has. Since his election, Obama has provided Israel with unprecedented
military aid and his administration has voted with Israel in the United Nations
100% of the time. What about the threat of Iran, the
nation posing the greatest threat to Israeli, security? According to AIPAC Director Howard Kohrs,
Obama has done more than any U.S. administration in history to pressure Tehran
and keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
But these facts don’t impress people like my uncle. As far as they are concerned, Obama revealed his true
anti-Semitic colors last Tuesday when the Democratic Party issued their official
2012 Platform on Foreign Policy.
According
to one conservative commentator, the Platform was “the most radically unsupportive
statement of policy on Israel by any major party since the founding of the state
of Israel.” Strong stuff! Let’s have a look:
“President Obama
and the Democratic Party maintain an unshakable commitment to Israel’s
security. A strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States not simply
because we share strategic interests, but also because we share common values.
For this reason, despite budgetary constraints, the President has worked with
Congress to increase security assistance to Israel every single year since
taking office, providing nearly $10 billion in the past three years. The
administration has also worked to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge in
the region. And we have deepened defense cooperation — including funding the
Iron Dome system — to help Israel address its most pressing threats, including
the growing danger posed by rockets and missiles emanating from the Gaza Strip,
Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. 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.
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.”
Did
you catch the “radically unsupportive” parts?
Me neither
.
But the
game is a subtle one. To find the evidence of Obama’s contempt for the Jewish
State, you have to read between the lines and focus on what’s NOT in theplatform. In 2008, the Democratic
Platform specifically recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital:
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
The
2012 statement, however, included no mention of Jerusalem as capital. The
Republicans pounced and their outrage machine went into overdrive. Romney found the omission “shameful.” Paul Ryan called it “tragic.”
Why is
this omission a big deal? Well the
status of Jerusalem is certainly a big deal for Israelis. Jerusalem is
the capital of Israel but is not recognized as such by the International
community. This issue has also been one
of the major stumbling blocks in negotiations with Palestinians, who also claim
Jerusalem as their capital.
But the show of outrage on the part of Romney and Ryan is both hypocritical and absurd for several reasons:
- As a matter of official policy, the United States does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The language contained in party platforms has never made an iota of difference. Every U.S. administration since Truman has reiterated the same position: The final status of Jerusalem must be arrived at through negotiation.
- Although U.S. candidates for President frequently pledge to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital by moving its embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem, no U.S. president has ever taken steps to do so. (Despite his own promises, President Bush signed waivers 16 times to avoid moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem)
- In 2008, the GOP platform stated: “We support Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel and moving the American embassy to that undivided capital of Israel.” But in 2012, the GOP abandoned this language. Now there nothing about Jerusalem being “undivided.” The pledge to move the embassy to Jerusalem is gone. By weakening the language, aren’t the Republicans distancing themselves from supporting Israel? Aren’t they undercutting Israel’s bargaining power? Where is the outrage?
And
never missing an opportunity to overplay their hand, Republicans also
complained that the 2012 Platform omitted a 2008 provision stating that
Palestinian refugees should be compensated (rather than returned to
Israel). Apparently, they were unaware
that in 2012, the GOP Platform also dropped this provision.
But
it's not only Republicans who were upset by the Jerusalem omission. The
changes to the party platform also made pro-Israel Democrats uncomfortable. Harvard Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz, a
strong supporter of both Israel and Barack Obama, found the changes to the
Democratic Platform “deeply troubling.”
Significantly, what Dershowitz found troubling was not the Platform
itself or anything to do with foreign policy or Obama’s support for Israel. It
was the fact that omission would be exploited for partisan purposes. In other words, it’s all about perception.
Not reality. But in the game of
political theater, perception is reality.
And
so, the Democrats back-pedaled. They
owned up to the faux pas and, reportedly at President Obama’s insistence, quickly
restored the provision recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Everyone happy now? Hardly
.
The
Republicans now have even more ammunition.
They will charge the Democrats with flip-flopping. They will say that the omission and subsequent inclusion show Obama’s support for Israel is tentative and mere pandering. They will point out that there were democrats
booing at the convention when the language was reinstated. And they will ask the
question. “Why was the Jerusalem recognition taken out in the first place?” Finally, a fair question.
But I
also think there’s an easy answer. And
the answer is not that Obama is a crypto-Muslim who is out to compromise the
security of Israel. It’s the fact that
the previous language, while perhaps satisfying to U.S. voters, was
contradictory and incoherent. Essentially,
the position was: “We recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital for eternity but… not really since that’s an issue to be
decided by final negotiations.” It’s
nonsensical. Since Obama is not moving
the embassy to Jerusalem anytime soon (nor would Romney if elected) he may well have found repeating the same false promises to be a bad idea. Perhaps some fool drafting the 2012 platform
got the crazy idea that the platform ought to make sense for a change. Never
mind that there haven’t been any meaningful negotiations between Israelis and
Palestinians for years anyway. Palestinian
militants continue to fire rockets from Gaza into Israel. The Israelis will justifiably retaliate. Israelis
and Palestinians will continue to suffer.
But
here at political conventions, we fight over the wording of promises that no
one means to keep. It's silliness. But this is political
theater and the show must go on.
____________________________________________________
