Editor’s Note – Any parliamentarian worth his or her salt must have choked as we did watching the DNC reinsert “God” and reaffirm that “Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel” into their platform. When LA Mayor Villaraigosa called the voice vote “in the opinion of the chair” as a two-third win for the “yeas”, it was plain to see two things. One, the DNC did not want the change, and two, the DNC leadership saw just how bad it was that they removed them in the first place.
It is also clear, Democrats at the convention do not support Israel or religion – period! No amount of explanation could remove that; not from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, or even the President. What a sham, what a shame!
Watch for yourself, and then ask if the chair hears the two-thirds votes called in favor of the “yeas” and “nays”:
Why has the Democratic National Convention been such a disaster?
When asked about the Democratic convention in Charlotte, NC, Mitt Romney called it a “celebration of failure.” Granted, he may be a little biased. Yet the spectacle coming out of the DNC this week is hard to ignore or even gloss over with well-intentioned words.
Frankly, it’s been a disaster.
Exhibit A is the Democrats’ embarrassing ham-fisted reversal on their party platform. The platform the party released on Tuesday omitted any reference to “God” and did not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Cue outcry.
On Wednesday, Democrats decided to add the references to God and Jerusalem back in amid screams of protest and utter chaos. But did they really? Who knows? Convention chairman and Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa seemed to have a hard time discerning if two-thirds of the audience were booing or cheering the changes. In what was probably a wise decision, Villaraigosa decided to call it a day and declare the majority in the affirmative.
David Axelrod, for his part, defended the president on the platform, and blamed “others” for the mishap. Now that’s leadership!
Next up is DNC chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Never far from controversy, Wasserman Schultz this week told Jewish Democrats that Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, said that “what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel.”
When an enterprising reporter at the Washington Examiner reported the comment, Oren denied ever saying such a thing. And then Wasserman Schultz denied ever saying Oren said such a thing, telling Fox News that the “comment was reported by a conservative newspaper. It’s not surprising that they would deliberately misquote me.”
Editor’s Note – Obama and his administration have circumvented the Congress many times, yet many Presidents have done so. However, in these tumultuous times, after the “Arab Spring” leading to the Syrian Revolution, all on Israel’s borders, or a part of the consortium that plans to “shove Israel into the sea”, isn’t it time one Congressional Act was followed?
The 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act is one such act that should be a key to any President’s foreign policy – Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel. As Mitt Romney affirmed, the official policy of the United States is that Israel’s capitol is Jerusalem. However, Hillary Clinton and Obama just cannot stop undermining Israel, despite their rhetoric.
They just can’t bring themselves to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, can they?
They can’t answer the question of where the capital is, or where Clinton will visit (although the answer to both questions is obvious), lest someone press them on whether Jerusalem is in Israel. Perhaps while she is there on July 16 or 17, Secretary Clinton will be asked if she still takes the position that even symbolically treating Jerusalem as Israel’s capital would jeopardize the non-existent peace process.
Three presidents – Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama – have signed a presidential waiver against moving the embassy to Jerusalem as required by the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act. The act also calls for Jerusalem to remain Israel’s undivided capital.
So while Clinton is visiting Paris, Tokyo, Ulaanbaatar, Hanoi, Vientiane, and Phnom Penh, will she be calling on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem?
Again, SUA asks why, why one of our most steadfast allies gets treated like the proverbial “red-headed step-child” of our foreign policy. It is time to align with Israel completely, not just in sound bites that have no meaning – just words that allow them to say they support Israel, yet we know underneath those vacuous words, they do not believe their own words.
Romney however – if we are to believe his words, is fore-square behind our ally, where is Hillary Clinton and Obama!
White House Differs with Romney on Jerusalem as Capital of Israel
(CNSNews.com) – In what marks a decisive difference in the presidential campaign, one day after Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney called Jerusalem the capital of Israel, the White House asserted that Romney’s position was different from that of the Obama administration.
“Our view is that that is a different position than this administration holds. It’s the view of this administration that the capital should be determined in final status negotiations between parties,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters Monday.
“I would remind you that that is the position that has been held by previous administrations both Democratic and Republican. So, if Mr. Romney disagrees with that position, he is also disagreeing with positions taken by previous presidents like Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan,” Earnest added.
On Thursday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney struggled during the afternoon press briefing to answer what the capital of Israel was, insisting reporters already knew the administration’s policy and that the policy was not changed. Hours later he issued a written answer, stating it will be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians.
On Sunday, Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, spoke from Jerusalem addressing the close relationship between the U.S. and Israel.
“It is a deeply moving experience to be in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel,” Romney said. “Our two nations are separated by more than 5,000 miles. But for an American abroad, you can’t get much closer to the ideals and convictions of my own country than you do in Israel.
“We’re part of the great fellowship of democracies. We speak the same language of freedom and justice, and the right of every person to live in peace. We serve the same cause and provoke the same hatreds in the same enemies of civilization,” he added.
On Thursday, IRN-USA Radio News reporter Connie Lawn asked Carney, “What city does this administration consider to be the capital of Israel – Jerusalem or Tel Aviv?”
Carney said, “I haven’t had that question in a while. Our position has not changed, Connie.”
The reporter followed, “What is the position? What’s the capital?”
Carney responded, “You know our position.”
Lawn said, “I don’t.”
Later on Thursday evening, Carney issued a written statement to answer the question.
“The status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in final status negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians,” Carney said in a written statement. “We continue to work with the parties to resolve this issue and others in a way that is just and fair, and respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.”
The statement mirrors the troubles that State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland had at a March 29 press briefing.
According to the official State Department transcript, a reporter asked Nuland, “Is it the view of the United States that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, notwithstanding the question about the Embassy, the location of the U.S. Embassy?”
Nuland said, “We are not going to prejudge the outcome of those negotiations, including the final status of Jerusalem.”
The reporter said, “Does that mean that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?”
Nuland responded, “Jerusalem is a permanent status issue; it’s got to be resolved through negotiations.”
The reporter asked, “That seems to suggest that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Is that correct or not?”
Nuland responded, “I have just spoken to this issue –”
The reporter went on to ask, “You’ve spoken to the issue but didn’t answer the question, and I think there’s a lot of people out there who are interested in hearing a real answer and not saying – and not trying to duck and say that this has got to be resolved by negotiations between the two sides.” The reporter again asked, “What is the capital of Israel?”
Nuland said, “Our policy with regard to Jerusalem is it has to be solved through negotiations. That’s all I have to say on this issue.”
The reporter again asked, “What is the capital of Israel?”
Nuland answered, “Our Embassy, as you know, is located in Tel Aviv.”
The reporter responded, “So does that mean that you regard Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel?”
Nuland said, “The issue on Jerusalem has to be settled through negotiations.”
The Washington Free Beacon first reported in March that the State Department had quietly altered an official communication that originally referred to Israel and Jerusalem as separate entities.
By SUA Staff – Why is it, that after 45 years, the US media still mischaracterizes the 1967 war in the Middle East?
Why, not because they cannot read or study factual history, rather, they chose to adopt revisionist history. In the following article below, it is clear that this is yet another example of how the so-called “newspaper of record”, the NY Times, rewrites history and slants its news – blatantly.
When the Arab nations lined up to annihilate Israel in 1967, Jordan controlled in part, what is referred to as Yesha. Yesha is an acronym in Israel for “Yehuda Shomron ‘Azza'”, also known as the West Bank (Samaria and Judea) and the Gaza (Azza) Strip, and is one of a number of terms used to describe the areas won by Israel after the Six-Day War of June 1967.
In the area of Yesha on the “West Bank” of Judeah and Samaria, the NY Times claims Israel “took” it from Jordan. Unfortunately for the NY Times, that is a myth:
“Israel attacked Jordan to capture Jerusalem.”
Prime Minister Levi Eshkol sent a message to King Hussein saying Israel would not attack Jordan unless he initiated hostilities. When Jordanian radar picked up a cluster of planes flying from Egypt to Israel, and the Egyptians convinced Hussein the planes were theirs, he then ordered the shelling of West Jerusalem. It turned out the planes were Israel’s, and were returning from destroying the Egyptian air force on the ground. Meanwhile, Syrian and Iraqi troops attacked Israel’s northern frontier.
Had Jordan not attacked, the status of Jerusalem would not have changed during the course of the war. Once the city came under fire, however, Israel needed to defend it, and, in doing so, took the opportunity to unify the city, ending Jordan’s 19-year occupation of the eastern part.
King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30, 1967. Nasser (Egypt) then announced:
The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel . . . to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations.
President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined in the war of words: “The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear—to wipe Israel off the map.” On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
Buoyed by false reports of Egyptian success, Jordan initiated offensive actions against Israel from the eastern portion of Jerusalem and from lands it occupied west of the Jordan river (the West Bank). Israeli forces responded by attacking Jordanian military positions. After a three days of fierce fighting, especially in and around Jerusalem, Israeli forces defeated the Jordanians and gained control of all of Jerusalem as well as the West Bank, the historical heartland of the Jewish people known to Israelis as Judea and Samaria.
Jordan (originally called Transjordan) was created out of the Palestine Mandate by Great Britain in 1923, and achieved full independence in 1946. In 1948, during the war against Israel, Transjordan conquered and annexed what became known as the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Old City of Jerusalem, but only Britain and Pakistan recognized its sovereignty there.
In fact, one small issue defies logic, how was Judea every anyone else’s but Israel’s, since it was originally Judah, one of the 12 tribes of Israel? The very name Judea (Yehuda) is part the root for the term “Jew”. How was Judea ever an ancestral Arab homeland, let alone a “Hashemite” homeland, since it was a land conquered from the Jews?
Even the Nazis called Jews “Juden”. History, fail to know it – doomed to repeat it – shame on the NY Times – again!
NY Times Claims Israel ‘Took’ Yesha from Jordan in 1967
A NY Times editorial rewrites history: Israel “took” Judea and Samaria from Jordan in 1967, when Jordan fled the areas in the Six Day war.
A New York Times editorial Tuesday rewrites history and claims Israel “took” Judea and Samaria from Jordan in 1967, when Jordan fled the areas after joining other Arab nations as they converged on Israel in the Six Day War.
The editorial lambasted Israel in last week’s non-binding report by a government-appointed judicial panel, which contradicted the international community’s claim that Israel is an “occupier” and that it is illegal for Jewish communities to exist in Judea and Samaria.
The editorial stance of the Times was not surprising, but its editorial actually twisted the fact that Israel never “took” or conquered Judea and Samaria. The newspaper also repeated the frequent claim, not supported by facts, that all of Judea and Samaria were under authorized Jordanian sovereignty.
The Israeli panel of three legal experts, chaired by former High Court Justice Edmund Levy, pointed out that Jordan actually was the occupier of what mainstream media calls the “West Bank, which also is a misnomer because the literal definition is all of the land west of the Jordan River and reaching the Mediterranean Coast.
The United Nations partition plan of 1947 was to divide Israel, administered under the British Mandate, between Israel and a new Arab state after Britain had created the artificial country of Transjordan. After the Arab world refused to accept the idea of a Jewish State of Israel, the War for Independence broke out and ended with the Temporary Armistice Lines of 1949. Jordan assumed sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria because its forces had occupied the area.
Jordanian forces fled the entire area during the Six Day War in 1967, leaving Israel to administer Judea and Samaria. Israel could be termed an “occupier” in the land that fell under its control and had been part of the country, but Jordan itself had occupied Judea and Samaria in 1947.
Nevertheless, The New York Times editorial continues to allege that Israel is in violation of “the Fourth Geneva Convention [that] bars occupying powers from settling their own populations in occupied lands.”
Even the editorial’s headline – “Wrong Time for New Settlements” – was a bit misleading concerning the newspaper’s opinion, which does not leave an option for a “right time” for settlements.
The Times also concluded that the Levy report was a “disastrous blow” because “pushing ahead with new settlements in the West Bank” is an obstacle to “peace talks, the best guarantee of a durable solution” to the Palestinian Authority-Israeli dispute.”
The newspaper even warned that the report also will damage Western efforts to halt Iran’s unsupervised nuclear development.
It reasoned that the report will bring about “new international anger at Israel…that could divert attention from Iran just when the world is bearing down with sanctions and negotiations to curb Tehran’s nuclear program.”
If Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood candidate for president Mohammed Mursi (right) wins, Egypt’s capital moves from Cairo to Jerusalem. So stated a leading Islamic leader, Safwat Hagazy, during a recent campaign rally as Mursi and MB head honcho Mohammed Badei looked on.
Outrageous? Fantastic? Not in Muslimworld. As crack Islamic law expert Stephen Coughlin pointed out to me today, the 2008 charter of the Organization of the Islamic conference similarly calls for OIC’s “permanent headquarters” to be moved to Jerusalem after the city’s “liberation.”
Article 21 of the OIC Charter:
The Headquarters of the General Secretariat shall be in the city of Jeddah until the liberation of the city of Al Quds so that it will become the permanent Headquarters of the Organisation.
Al Quds is the Islamic name for Jerusalem.
The OIC is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (it used to be known as the Organization of the Islamic Conference). With 56 Islamic member states represented by heads of state and foreign ministers, it is the largest voting bloc on the international stage, a unified front to advance Islam and its laws across the world.
If your logic reflexes are telling you that, gosh, that sure sounds like a new caliphate is taking shape with a proposed capital in Jersualem, you’re right. Such observations fail to earn space in the MSM but you’re still right. The MSM are worse than uninformative, which just might have something to do with shrinking profits.
“Our capital shall not be Cairo, Mecca or Medina. It shall be Jerusalem with God’s will. Our chants shall be: ‘millions of martyrs will march towards Jerusalem’,” prominent cleric Safwat Hagazy said, according to the video aired by Egypt’s religious Annas TV on Tuesday. The video went viral after being posted on YouTube – accompanied by English subtitles by Memri TV –, with 61,691 views until Thursday night.
“The United States of the Arabs will be restored on the hands of that man [Mursi] and his supporters. The capital of the [Muslim] Caliphate will be Jerusalem with God’s will,” Hegazy said, as the crowds cheered, waving the Egyptian flags along with the flags of the Islamist Hamas group, which rules the Gaza Strip.
“Tomorrow Mursi will liberate Gaza,” the crowds chanted.
“Yes, we will either pray in Jerusalem or we will be martyred there,” Hegazy said.
Hegazy’s speech came during a presidential campaign rally at the Egyptian Delta city of Mahalla, where Mursi attended along with the Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Mohammed Badei and members of the group and its political wing the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP).
A prominent Egyptian cleric with ties to the Brotherhood added to those fears last week when he told a large rally that should Mursi win the election, Egypt’s capital will no longer be Cairo, but rather Jerusalem.
“The United States of the Arabs will be restored on the hands of that man [Mursi] and his supporters. The capital of the [Muslim] Caliphate will be Jerusalem with Allah’s will,” said Safwat Hagazy in a speech broadcast on Egypt’s Annas TV. “Yes, we will either pray in Jerusalem or we will be martyred there.”
Mursi and other Muslim Brotherhood officials were in attendance at the rally.
Last month, Muslim Brotherhood General Guide Mohammed Badie issued a written statement calling Israel’s rebirth the “worst catastrophe ever to befall the peoples of the world” and demanding that the “Zionist entity” withdraw from all the “land of Palestine.”
Like Hamas and the regime in Iran, elected Muslim Brotherhood officials (even the president) ultimately answer to or are significantly influenced by religious leaders within their movement. While Mursi may become the president of Egypt, Badie will remain in control of the Brotherhood.
Hamas, which is an off-shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, is eager for a Mursi victory in Saturday’s election.
A Muslim Brotherhood victory “will make Israel weaker and more isolated. Israel will have no friends or alliances left in this region,” Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad told the Los Angeles Times last week.
Even before the feared Brotherhood takeover, there are already signs Egypt is returning to a position of outright hostility toward Israel.
Earlier this month, Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram reported that Egypt’s government censor had halted production on a private film that allegedly promoted normalization of relations with Israel. The movie’s writer insisted that the film – which follows the lives of an Egyptian, a Palestinian and an Israeli – was not intended to promote Israel, but rather to encourage peace and cooperation, something in which Egypt’s new rulers apparently have no interest.
At the same time, Egypt’s censors approved a wildly popular new song titled “I Love Israel,” which in fact urges the exact opposite sentiment toward the Jewish state.
“May it [Israel] be destroyed. May it be colonized. May it be wiped off the map. May a wall fall on it. May it disappear from the universe. God, please have it banished,” go the lyrics of the new hit by singer Amr El Masry.
Did the Washington Post report on Hagazy’s declaration?