The Jerusalem language is back and  so is God, but Convention leaders had to cheat to do it. 
And most of the 2008 pro-Israel language removed from the 2012 platform remains missing.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, the head of the Democratic National Convention, got up and asked for a two-thirds vote on the amendments to the platform. He took a voice vote, with people stating aloud “aye” and “nay.”

The first time, he couldn’t determine if two-thirds of the voters had said “aye”; a loud “no” vote was heard. He asked for a second vote.

The second time, he couldn’t determine whether the voice vote had passed. Again. Villaraigosa looked around in confusion.

Finally, on the third attempt, Villaraigosa took a voice vote and simply declared, in the “opinion of the chair,” that it had been passed. There were widespread boos in the convention hall to the renewed inclusion of God and language about Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And Villaraigosa was lying, in any case – there is no way that the voice vote had passed. Opponents stood up and protested, waving and shouting. The fix was in.

Watch the Video Below:

Understand that the original 2012 language was what the party and the President preferred,

take our poll - story continues below

Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?

  • Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Lid updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

CNN’s Dana Bash: I asked the DNC [why it omitted sections of its 2008 Israel plank from its 2012 platform] and we have an answer. And their answer was that they were simply following what the Obama administration’s policy is, and the White House said several months ago that the status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in the final status negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and that is why it is not in the platform as it was in 2008.

 The  Democrats returned the  Jerusalem and God References, but did NOT put back the other important pro-Israel language from 2008 (in bold)

The United States should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism.  By removing this sentence, is
Obama preparing to give this group legitimacy? He has already done it
with Hamas’ parent group, the Muslim Brotherhood which took over Egypt.
Hamas’ partner in the U.S., CAIR continues to be accepted by, and
promoted by liberal members of Congress despite an FBI warning.

...should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel. While
the number of Palestinian refugees in 1949 was somewhere between
800,000-900,000, today the number is over 4 million. This group of
refugees is the only example in history where the number has grown
without a population shift (the UN counts the original refugees, their
children, grandchildren, first cousin twice removed on their mother’s
side, friends etc as refugees.

Since they cannot defeat Israel militarily; one of the Palestinians’
strategies is to flood this Democratic country with “refugees” so it
will cease to exist as a Jewish state via election. That is why the 2008
platform included the refugee statement. 

In keeping with their strategy the Palestinians refuse to recognize
Israel as a Jewish state. And while the President has said Israel is the
Jewish state, he has been very careful not to call for the recognition
of Israel as the Jewish state. Is the removal of the “settle elsewhere”
statement is an indication that the President agrees with the
Palestinian “flood Israel with refugees” strategy? Can you think of
another reason why he would back track? Remember that flexibility
statement to Mevedev.

All understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final
status negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice
lines of 1949.

Obama walked away from that big time last
May when he called for Israel to begin negotiations by agreeing to
return to the 1949 lines. At the time the Democrats said it was no
change from previous policy–that was a lie. In 2008 he ran on the basis
that a return to the 1949 lines were unrealistic. Why is that language
is missing from this year’s document?

I repeat if the Democrats  removed this pro-Israel section from their
platform, I shudder to think what Obama has in store for Israel if he
gets that flexibility he told Mevedev about!