Friday, September 07, 2012

There's more missing from the Democratic platform than God and Jerusalem

By Andrew C. McCarthy
PJ Media
September 6, 2012

Do you see the words “Hamas” and “Hezbollah” in here? Me neither.
Of course, there’s a difference. The omission of God and Jerusalem from the Democratic Party’s 2012 platform was quite intentionally meant as a demotion, very much in keeping with Obama administration policy. The jihadists, by contrast, are moving up in the world.
As for God, there’s not room in this universe for two The Ones. In cases of conflict, the president has made it abundantly clear that his pieties control, and the pious better get with the program: Domestically, abortion-on-demand and wealth-redistribution to assure free contraceptives for thirty-something co-eds; internationally, close cooperation and billions in U.S. aid for regimes that abet the persecution of Christians, Jews and other religious minorities.
On Jerusalem, administration mouth-pieces and apologists remain as tongue-tied as they were before The One completed his “evolution” on gay marriage. And for precisely the same reason: their grudging public position — Jerusalem is sorta Israel’s capital, but we’re mulling that one, so get back to us on, say, November 7 or so — is miles apart from their private conviction — Jerusalem (or as Obama’s counterterrorism czar, John Brennan, puts it, “al-Quds”) is a “final status” issue that we can’t prejudge because our Muslim friends consider it theirs.
And about those Muslim friends … my friends at the Center for Security Policy remind us of what the Democrats’ 2008 platform had to say about Hamas and Hezbollah:
Our … commitment [to Israel], which requires us to ensure that Israel retains a qualitative edge for its national security and its right to self-defense, is all the more important as we contend with growing threats in the region – a strengthened Iran, a chaotic Iraq, the resurgence of Al Qaeda, the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah…. [W]e must help Israel identify and strengthen those partners who are truly committed to peace, while isolating those who seek conflict and instability, and stand with Israel against those who seek its destruction. The United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and abides by past agreements.
Four years later, with Israel’s security situation dramatically — and not coincidentally — worse than it was when Obama was elected, Hamas and Hezbollah have been dropped from the platform. They have not changed, mind you. They continue, without a scintilla of apology, to deny Israel’s right to exist and seek its destruction. But they are this administration’s friends — or, at the very least, friends of its friends.
Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose takeover of Egypt President Obama abetted and is now subsidizing with American taxpayer dollars. Hezbollah, which has killed more Americans than any jihadist organization other than al Qaeda, got theBrennan seal-of-approval in 2010 as “a very interesting organization” with many “moderate elements.” Both terrorist organizations are supported by the anti-Israeli regime in Turkey, whose Islamist prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is Obama’s closest confidant in the region. Erdogan insists that they are not terrorist organizations but “political parties.” (Erdogan’s Islamization of Turkey and support of jihadists bent on annihilating Israel are subjects of my forthcoming book, Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy.)
Regardless of U.S. law, which designates Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorists whom it is a crime to support, the administration has sided with the Islamists: When Secretary of State Clinton launched Obama’s “Global Counterterrorism Forum” — in conjunction with Turkey, and in partnership with Egypt and Saudi Arabia — Israel, the world’s leading terror target, was excluded. The administration’s preferred allies regard terrorist attacks against Israel as legitimate “resistance” against an illegitimate “occupier.” The Democrats are going along for the ride.
Mitt?

No comments:

Post a Comment