Democrats Remove Pro-Israel Language from Platform Update: Romney Responds

Update: Republican nominee Mitt Romney has released the following statement in response:

It is unfortunate that the entire Democratic Party has embraced President Obama’s shameful refusal to acknowledge that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. Four years of President Obama’s repeated attempts to create distance between the United States and our cherished ally have led the Democratic Party to remove from their platform an unequivocal acknowledgment of a simple reality. As president, I will restore our relationship with Israel and stand shoulder to shoulder with our close ally.

The Democrat Party has removed a section of its 2008 Party Platform in the 2012 version recently released online — some key language in expressing support for the state of Israel.

Below is the section missing from the 2012 document (h/t Republican Jewish Coalition, @RJCHQ) :

TheUnited States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamasuntil it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, andabides by past agreements. Sustained American leadership for peace andsecurity will require patient efforts and the personal commitment of thePresident of the United States. The creation of a Palestinian statethrough final status negotiations, together with an internationalcompensation mechanism, should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugeesby allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel. All understandthat it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final statusnegotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of1949. Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel.The partieshave agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. Itshould remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.

Eachof these items is crucial to Israel, and all have been key areas ofcontention for those who believe this President has not been friendly tothe Jewish State.

1. The United States should continueto isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism. Is Obama preparing togive this group legitimacy? He has already done it with Hamas’s parentgroup, the Muslim Brotherhood, which recently took over Egypt’s parliament and presidency. Hamas’s partner inthe U.S., CAIR, continues to be accepted by and promoted by Democrat members of Congress, despite an FBI warning.

2. …shouldresolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settlethere, rather than in Israel. While the number of Palestinian refugeesin 1949 was somewhere between 800,000-900,000, today the number is over 4million. This group of refugees is the only example in history wherethe number has grown without a population shift (the UN counts theoriginal refugees, their children, grandchildren, first cousin twiceremoved on their mother’s side, friends, etc. as refugees). 

Sincethey cannot defeat Israel militarily, one of the Palestinians’strategies is to flood the country with “refugees” so itwill cease to exist as a Jewish state via election. That is why the2008 platform included the refugee statement. 

In keeping withtheir strategy, the Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewishstate. And while the President has said Israel is the Jewish state, hehas been very careful not to call for worldwide recognition of Israel as theJewish state. Is the removal of the “settle elsewhere” statement anindication that the President agrees with the Palestinian “flood Israelwith refugees” strategy?

3.All understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of finalstatus negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armisticelines of 1949. Obama walked away from that statement last May when hecalled for Israel to begin negotiations by agreeing to return to the1949 lines. At the time, the Democrats said it was no change fromprevious policy; that was a lie. In 2008, Obama ran on the basis that areturn to the 1949 lines was unrealistic. Why is that language ismissing from this year’s document?

5. Jerusalem is and will remainthe capital of Israel. During a press briefing at the end of July, JayCarney refused to outline the President’s position on Jerusalem.Eventually, the administration released a statement that Obama’s positionremains unchanged; Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel because itsfinal status has not yet been negotiated. That statement was a lie, butit is now codified with the omission from this year’s platform. 

Noticethat it that the campaign isn’t even saying the borders of Jerusalem aresubject to negotiation, which would mean that the western part of thecity would remain with the Jewish state. The Obama administration hasremoved all reference to Jerusalem from its platform, indicating abelief that the entire city is up for grabs.

Sometimes what acampaign doesn’t say is more important than what it says. In 2008, BarackObama ran on a strong pro-Israel platform. Granted, the platform’spro-Israel language were promises the president did not keep. Those whobelieve in a strong United States/Israel alliance should be concernedthat this year’s platform does not even pay lip service to these key issues for the future of the Jewish state.