DNC changes Platform to recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel.

[MoonRiver]

Apparently Jewish groups were up in arms that this was taken out.

[still_one]

1. That sounds like the republicans pushing this

[oldhippydude]

2. that was my thought

Fokkks news talking point........ your Sheldon Adelson dollars at work

[Gin]

6. The chairman tried to get a 2/3 yes vote

Had to try 3 times because the no's were louder....he finally said the yea's have it......

It was interesting to watch....unhappy crowd over that issue

[PoliticAverse]

3. He took the voice vote 3 times, still didn't seem they had 2/3rds majority to me. n/t

[MoonRiver]

11. I didn't think so either.

[frazzled]

4. Outrageous

I watched the vote, in a 1/4 filled hall, and there were not 2/3 in favor of that last-minute ridiculous addition.

What the hell was that even about. Why would we want to respond to Republican criticism?

[fugop]

8. That was the first sour note of the DNC

The Dems caved on the GOP insistence on ignoring the separation of church and state ... again. Disappointing, but I knew that's what it would be as soon as they said an amendment was coming.

[Panasonic]

13. I agree. They shouldn't even bring it up. I'm pissed as hell

and I'm Jewish, that issue should have stayed out of the DNC platform.

This gives Republicans a bit of ammo now. And Villagrosa should have tabled it and moved on.

He didn't and now he's gonna get chewed out now.

[former9thward]

17. It is not his call.

The White House is running the convention. Villagrosa is just a figurehead.

[frazzled]

25. I am Jewish as well

It's just not something that should be in our platform, and it certainly shouldn't be there because the Republicans started to taunt.

Sigh.

[JaneyVee]

30. I'm a half-Jew (secular humanist), nothing wrong with obeying the Constitution.

Separation of church & state.

[cali]

12. well, it was in the 2008 platform not that I think it should be in the platform

[amandabeech]

5. Villaigarosa (sp) is having difficulty getting a 2/3 majority on a voice vote.

He just called the third voice vote, then declared that the "ayes" had it.

There were boos from the "nos".

Frankly, I thought that the "no" vote was so substantial that there should have been a recorded vote.

All this took place before the invocation.

[VenusRising]

7. It didn't sound like 2/3 to me, either.

[cali]

9. got a link to that?

[MoonRiver]

14. No, but I just watched it go down live.

[tjdee]

10. Great punk move :/

If you're gonna leave it out, leave it out, fuck!

I'm sure they had plenty of convo and knew repercussions beforehand. I disagree that it should have been left out in the first place. But if that's what they wanted to go with then, why bow from pressure and look like punks now?

GRRRRRR!

If I were in a position of power in the DNP stuff like this would not happen. It's so annoying.

[Panasonic]

15. Villagrosa is DLC

What did you expect?

They bow to AIPAC.

[tjdee]

16. So they should have bowed to AIPAC before.

Not this bs "woops let's change it".

This just looks sloppy and stupid.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

20. Yeah but

like we learned last week: candidates views may differ from the platform, so essentially the platform is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Well, in the end though, people vote for the candidate, not the platform. This all seems like really "nitpicky" stuff to begin with. Anybody capable of getting all worked about this probably isn't going to vote Dem anyway..........

[KatyMan]

18. Seriously, why should I care more about Israel

than any other particular nation? Not being snarky, but religious reasons aside, why should I care?

[treestar]

19. Why the heck is this suddenly an issue?

This is one of those reality issues the Rs have.

[Panasonic]

21. Bingo.

[jsmirman]

26. This is a huge diplomatic issue

there was a whole Supreme Court case that touched on this decided in March: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/m-b-z-v-clinton/

As a Jew, I find this declaration counter-productively bellicose, but I guess the DNC decided the election wouldn't be decided by Palestinian votes...

[LiberalAndProud]

22. Looks like a cave in.

a lack of spine, if you will. This was, IMO, not wise.

[jsmirman]

27. Tbh

I'm not sure I see a great cost in consequences out of this.

I don't like it (please see above), but I'm not sure I see a political cost, my opinion notwithstanding.

[jsmirman]

28. Well, actually, this is a weird one

here is how it has been consistently, under both Republican and Democratic Administrations:

The Exec Branch: views it as an interference in foreign policy to have any such statement made about Jerusalem

Congress: Says Jerusalem is the capital of Israel

This has been the breakdown for decades.

It is, thinking about it, problematic, as we want to pin the outrageous women-hating GOP plank on Cowardly Mitt.

The response is distressingly subtle and could complicate argument - the response is that this is a breakdown between the Exec Branch and Congress that is traditional enough to have survived multiple administrations and congresses, with all manner of party combinations as to who controls those branches.

So there's reason that this should be pinned to the Presidential candidate.

But that's pretty damn hard to communicate, I suspect.

[Spider Jerusalem]

35. Not really so weird, there is a functional difference between de facto and de jure

Jerusalem is the de facto capital of Israel; it is not recognised de jure under international law, and no country has its embassy in Jerusalem.

De jure, the majority of UN member states and most international organisations do not recognise Israel's control of East Jerusalem which occurred after the 1967 Six Day War, nor its 1980 Jerusalem Law proclamation, which declared a "complete and united" Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positions_on_Jerusalem

[jsmirman]

38. Not sure what you're getting at - I know that we moved our Embassy

along with everyone else out of Jerusalem and to Tel Aviv quite some time ago.

But I'm not sure what your point is driving at, for one, and then after that, if you can explain how this becomes easier to explain to the American public, that would be great.

[Spider Jerusalem]

40. My point is that inserting language like this into the party platform is pretty irrelevant

it's pandering is what it is, basically. The official position of the US government is that Jerusalem is not the officially recognised capital of Israel. It doesn't matter how many resolutions get passed in Congress, because Congress doesn't make foreign policy. And it doesn't matter how much pandering either party does on the issue to shore up their credentials for being "strong on maintaining America's relationship with Israel" unless and until a presidential administration decides to officially change US policy (which hasn't happened yet for all the talk).

[jsmirman]

45. Each President in succession has declined to take Congress up on the offer

we'll see what happens.

I think any noise probably got thundered over by that rocking night at the convention.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. Moved it out of Jerusalem and to Tel Aviv? Are you sure it was ever in Jerusalem?

For instance, by 1949 there was an American embassy in Tel Aviv: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/index.php?action=docs

Or:

The policy that the American Embassy reside in Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem pre-dates the current administration. In fact, as Lara Friedman notes at Americans for Peace Now, the U.S. “does not recognize the sovereignty of any party in any part of Jerusalem (East or West)” and it’s “a policy that dates back to pre-1948, and has been followed by every U.S. Administration since, regardless of the President or party in the White House.”

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/10/28/356276/romney-israel-policy/

[jsmirman]

43. Actually - I think what I meant

was that they moved the Ambassador and the staff out of Jerusalem?

They moved something.

I took a mini-course on Jerusalem last fall, and I'm certain something was moved. I know that's very vague, but I can get back to you if you're curious. I still have the materials reasonably on hand.

[fugop]

23. On the plus side...

... Clinton's speaking later. I expect his speech should eclipse the crappy platform stuff. Hope so anyway.

[quinnox]

24. Is the president honor-bound to accept these platform policies/stances?

as his own views?

[choie]

29. the article that I read said

that these were the president's views. Don't blame others for his capitulation.

[LiberalAndProud]

32. What article?

It seems odd that the president's views would be put to a voice vote. I'm confused.

[Skip Intro]

37. It's in this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-change-platform-add-god-jerusalem-211928130--election.html

The Democratic Party's decision to restore the mention of Jerusalem reflected what advisers said was the president's personal view, if not the policy of his administration. The administration has long said determining Jerusalem's status was an issue that should be decided by Israelis and Palestinians in peace talks, but has been careful not to state that Jerusalem is Israel's capital.

[jsmirman]

39. Wait

the President is said to be at odds here with his administration?

[PoliticAverse]

31. No. n/t

[former-republican]

33. happy happy joy joy

Obama releases $70M in additional military funding
By JULIE PACE Associated Press
Updated: 07/27/2012 06:05:48 PM EDT




Click photo to enlargePresident Barack Obama shakes hands with Richard Stone, chairman,... ((AP Photo/Susan Walsh))«123»WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama said Friday he is releasing an additional $70 million in military aid for Israel, a previously announced move that appeared timed to upstage Republican rival Mitt Romney's trip to Israel this weekend.
The stepped-up U.S. aid, first announced in May, will go to help Israel expand production of a short-range rocket defense system. The system, known as Iron Dome, has proved successful at stopping rocket attacks fired at Israeli civilians from close range, including from Gaza.

Obama announced the new military assistance as he signed a bill in the Oval Office expanding military and civilian cooperation with Israel.

As he sought to underscore his commitment to Israel, the president first said the increased aid totaled $70 million, then said the number was actually $70 billion, even though the smaller figure is correct.

Obama said the bill underscores the United States' "unshakable commitment to Israel."

The White House focus on Israel this week comes as Romney prepares to visit Jerusalem. The presumptive GOP nominee is a critic of Obama's policy toward Israel and has promised to ramp up U.S. aid to the Jewish state, although Obama officials say the administration already provides record levels of funding.

A Romney spokeswoman said the former Massachusetts governor was happy to see steps being taken to enhance security cooperation with Israel.

"Unfortunately this bill does nothing to address yesterday's evasiveness from the White House on whether President Obama recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which raised doubt about the president's commitment to our closest ally in the region," said Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg.

Romney is in London on the first leg of an overseas trip designed to burnish his foreign policy credentials.

The White House subtly injected itself into Romney's trip on Thursday after Romney caused a stir by calling London's problems with Olympics preparation "disconcerting."

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama "has the utmost confidence" in Britain's ability to host the games.

Obama planned to continue competing with Romney for attention during the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games, which Romney was scheduled to attend while in London. Romney led the organizing committee for the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City.

The Obama campaign was airing an ad for American audiences during the opening ceremonies featuring Obama promoting his middle-class political pitch.

"I believe that the way you grow the economy is from the middle out," Obama says in the ad, echoing a standard campaign refrain. "I believe in fighting for the middle class because if they are prospering, all of us will prosper."

With the ad, Obama guarantees himself a presence during opening ceremonies despite the free media Romney might get by being there in person.

[librechik]

34. who let Lindsey Graham in the room?

just joking. I know Dems did this sad and unnecessary concession.

[RagAss]

36. I don't live in Israel.

Why would recognition of their capital city be part of my party's platform ?

[Honeycombe8]

42. Who took it out? Without a meeting and approval of everyone? How sloppy & unprofessional. nt

[HiPointDem]

44. wtf?