Democrats To Reinstate Platform Language On Jerusalem As Capital Of Israel

One of the changes to the Democratic Party Platform that has aroused the most controversy is the removal of several provisions that had been in previous platforms recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Less than 24 hours after the platform was approved by the delegates, the language about Jerusalem is being reinstated: 

NBC News has learned that the Democratic Party will reinstate the language recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Republicans — including the Romney campaign — criticized President Obama and the Democrats after it was discovered this language had been omitted in the Democratic Party’s platform

This will all be changed on the floor today, NBC has learned, and it will probably mean just simply reinstating the 2008 language.

Apparently, many Jewish supporters of the party and Members of Congress had been complaining about the change ever since it became public and the GOP was using it as a political whipping boy. So, it’s not surprising that they would change it so quickly. One wonders what motivated them to remove it, though.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, Quick Takes, US Politics, ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Ron Beasley says:

    And the tail still wags the dog!

  2. legion says:

    One wonders what motivated them to remove it, though.

    Well, anything Middle-East-related is something of a lightning rod (doubly so for Israel policy). My guess is that the Dems didn’t want it in there as a potential distraction from their main message, but but were mistaken in thinking that nobody would notice. Putting it back in quickly & with a minimum of internal bickering is probably the best path.

  3. al-Ameda says:

    Apparently, many Jewish supporters of the party and Members of Congress had been complaining about the change ever since it became public and the GOP was using it as a political whipping boy. So, it’s not surprising that they would change it so quickly. One wonders what motivated them to remove it, though.

    I don’t wonder at all – it was a sensible political assessment that it’s not worth the trouble to get enmeshed in a debate over whether Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel.

  4. John Peabody says:

    Changing the platform…you’d almost call it flip-flopping… Damn it,Mathis is what politicians do! It’s the very definition of politics! Why are people so surprised and / or angry about it?

  5. OzarkHillbilly: says:

    One wonders what motivated them to remove it, though.

    No, a sentient being does not… still a sentient being is disappointed that a political party is not above politics…. HAH!!!

    (if the sarcasm is not heavy enuf, let me add a ton or 2)(and for the record, I am still disappointed).

  6. Tony W says:

    Criticism over God and Jerusalem, I thought the R’s said the economy was the big issue?

  7. Liberal Capitalist says:

    Unless we decide to annex Israel as the 51st state… I don’t believe that anything to do with a capital of a foreign country is anything that we should include as a platform.

    We didn’t do that for Berlin and the bifurcated Germany… why do it for Isreal?

    Shouldn’t that be for themselves to decide?

    Or… is American Exceptionalism now so overwhelming that we now rule all foreign lands as well?

    Seriously.

    Hell… we can’t even get folks in D.C. proper representation.

  8. Andre Kenji says:

    One wonders what motivated them to remove it, though.

    It´s not the official policy of any past administration of both parties and it does not makes any sense, unless you are pandering. Specially because it´s not worth the fight with the Arabs.

  9. @al-Ameda:

    Perhaps, but this provision had been in the platform for decades and, yet, official U.S. policy on the Jerusalem question remains the same (and indeed it will remain the same even if Mitt Romney wins in November). Drawing attention to the issue by removing it was more trouble than it was worth, IMO

  10. @Andre Kenji:

    As I said above to al-Ameda, this same provision has been in the platform of both parties for decades and yet official U.S. policy has ever changed, not even under the supposedly rabidly pro-Israel Bush 43 Administration.

    It’s a platform, it means nothing for policy, but it’s all about that pandering you referenced. Heck, all of politics is about pandering.,

  11. tps says:

    @Liberal Capitalist:

    DC can get proper representation quite easily: become part of Maryland like how the rest of the district is now part of Virginia. Problem solved.

  12. Rob in CT says:

    Effing pathetic. That is all.

  13. MarkedMan says:

    I hate this. Israel is our “best ally”? Why? What do we actually gain from our relationship with them? The fact that they are enemies of people who also cause us trouble? Once upon a time they at least had the moral upper hand but are quickly loosing that with a march toward apartheid. The Israeli’s have universal health care. They pay able bodied men so they don’t have to work and exempt them from their otherwise universal draft. And they do it with our money! We have “serious” pundits writing columns about how Obama should go to Israel to ‘appeal directly to the Israeli people for their support’. How about we take our very real multi-billion dollar support and bring it back home? And let the d**n Israelis worry about their own government leaders.

  14. Rob in CT says:

    Funny how technically Israel isn’t actually an ally at all. To the best of my knowledge, we are not obligated by treaty to defend Israel.

    What they are is a client state. One that doesn’t act like a client state, because they’ve been very successful in leveraging support of Jewish Americans into near-lockstep support in Congress. Pretty brilliant, really. But irritating.

  15. Rob in CT says:

    @Rob in CT:

    I shouldn’t say support of Jewish Americans as if that’s the only base of support. It’s not. It may have started there, but obviously support for Israel (if not necessarily support for Israeli policies) is far broader. It includes me, even though I’m critical of Israeli government policy.