Skip to comments.DNC Platform Still Guts Pro-Israel Language
Posted on 09/06/2012 5:58:17 AM PDT by SumProVita
Despite yesterdays chaos on the floor of the Democratic National Convention in an attempt to restore Jerusalem and God to the Democratic Party 2012 platform, full pro-Israel language from the 2008 platform has not been and will not be restored. The current Democratic platform regarding Israel had a couple sentences restored yesterday:
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.
But the full language of the 2008 platform is still gone:
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Each and every sentence of this is important. If the Democratic Party no longer believes that the United States and its partners should isolate Hamas, refuses to acknowledge that return to 1949 armistice lines is disastrous, and doesnt think that the so-called right of return which would destroy Israel as a Jewish state is a non-starter, theres nothing to talk about: the Party has excised virtually every important element from its Israel plank."
Pure evil has overtaken the Democrat Party in our nation. ;-(
I bet the Jerusalem language was there and being protected for years by Joe Lieberman. It I longer has that protection. I cannot think of a member of the Democrat Party today who is proactively pro-Israel.
You are correct. It is almost unbelievable to really see the extent of the Democrat party disintegration into pure EVIL.
Israel needs to put its foot down, and the way to do so is simple, legitimate, and generally non-violent.
Nationalize all religious sites that are not Jewish.
Every other country in the world works off the assumption that holy sites in their nation are still in their national territory. Only Israel has permitted the illusion that some of the holy sites in Israel *may* be owned by other nations or religions.
Holy sites are not embassies, the only internationally legitimate examples of foreign territories within other nations.
And yet, if Israel is to do this, there would be a great international outcry, because other nations and religions actually have the gall to claim parts of Israel’s territory as their own.
But the *reason* for fully nationalizing such sites is so that Israel can turn around and *lease* them to whoever is now using them.
These leases would be for a nominal sum, say one shekel a year, but leases would be *contingent* on “good behavior”.
For example, currently the radical Wahhabi sect runs the al-Asqa mosque. The Israelis could tell them that if they permitted any harassment of Jews, Israel would give their lease to the less radical Sufi sect. The very thought would make the Wahhabis freak out, but after their usual panicked threats and rages, they would be far more likely to toe the line.
This threat to Wahhabi power is exactly what the Saud family in Saudi Arabia uses to keep them in line, that the Wahhabis would lose their “concession” for Arabia’s mosques, and they would be given to the Sufis.
It works as a threat.
And such a threat could be applied to every single mosque in Israel as well, and ironically, because it would be such a coup for the Sufis, they would likely be the best tenants around, filled with sweetness and light while the Wahabbis and Salafists and MB gnashed their teeth a lot.
Importantly, in the Islamic world, the Sufis do not have their own country, and are often oppressed by other Muslim sects as sort-of-heretics, so for Israel to lease them its nationalized mosques would be a huge Sufi thumb in the eye to the other Muslim sects.