Democratic party changes platform to favor Israel

In a flip-flop move that surprised some and angered others, Democrats changed their platform position concerning Israel during the party’s national convention.

The Democrats had originally decided to remove a declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Last Wednesday, they reversed the decision, and both will be in the platform for the 2012 election.

“I think it’s a great decision, and it’s a decision that we are proud of,” said Rabbi Yehoshua Chincholker of the Chabad House and Jewish Student Center. “The Democratic Party is supporting Jerusalem.”

President Barack Obama’s campaign maintains he has been consistent in his support of Israel and Jerusalem. The president intervened before the decision was made to reinstate those parts of the platform.

Chincholker was not so sure. He said, for example, when the prime minister of Israel visited Obama, the meeting was cold.

It was embarrassing, he said.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s campaign criticized Obama and Democrats for what they called ambiguous rhetoric.

“Mitt Romney has consistently stated his belief that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel,” Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in a release. “Although today’s voice vote at the Democratic National Convention was unclear, the Democratic Party has acknowledged Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.”

Chincholker said the Jewish community, who has consistently voted Democratic in the past, will not change who they vote for.

University of Michigan professor Mark Tessler, an editor of the IU Press Indiana Series in Arab and Islamic Studies, said the declaration will not make any difference.

“I think voters have pretty much made up their minds,” Tessler said. “The election is very close, so I think they’re hoping to tip the scales. But I don’t know if that’s very likely.”

Both parties have declared support for Jerusalem as the capital of Israel , but Tessler said where the city fits into the larger politics between Israel and Palestine is ambiguous.

“Both parties in principle agree with the two-state solution,” Tessler said.

The rhetoric of the parties leaves pro-Palestinian voters without options, Tessler said.

This was reflected by thestatements of Rashida Tlaib, the first Muslim woman elected to the Michigan state legislature. She objected to the Democrats’ decision to once again recognize Jerusalem.

“Obviously, it makes me feel a little frustrated that this is not being truly discussed in a fair, just way,” Tlaib said.

Tessler said the problem is neither party has provided specifi c plans regarding policy with Israel. Both have declared support , he said, but that’s where the party speeches end.

“They don’t really get into specifics,” Tessler said. “It’s really just a political message.The question is, ‘what would be their broader policies?’”

The rabbi could not say what Romney would do if elected president.

Chincholker said Obama has so far treated Israel somewhat indifferently.

“From the actions, not the talk,” he said. “It’s a game of mirrors and smoke.”