Aron U. Raskas

Why believe the Democrats on Israel?

The rules of evidence applicable in most courts of law give fact-finders the right to question the veracity of convicted perjurers. The rationale is apparent. As Congress observed in enacting the Federal Rules of Evidence, there is good reason to believe that proven liars will not testify truthfully.

While nobody is accusing this Democratic president or his surrogates of perjury, the willingness – and, particularly, the eagerness – of Democratic officials to lie while pandering for the Jewish vote is now being well-established. It should give any Jewish voter good reason to doubt the truth of anything they say concerning Israel or Jerusalem.

In a talk to Jewish Democrats at the Democratic National Convention, Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz stated that “We know, and I’ve heard no less than Ambassador Michael Oren say this, that what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel.”

A report of that statement in the Washington Examiner caused Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren to take the rare step of issuing a categorical denial that he ever said any such thing.

Presented with that denial, Wasserman Schultz apparently resorted to a new fabrication. Appearing on Fox News, she claimed that she “didn’t say [Oren] said that.” Rather, she argued that her comment “was reported by a conservative newspaper” and that it was “not surprising that they would deliberately misquote me.”

Unfortunately for the Democratic leader, the reporter produced an audio tape with the verbatim quote from Wasserman Schultz. The lie appears to have been proved.

More of the same arose from the Democrats’ poor construction of their convention platform. While the 2008 platform stated that “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel,” that line was, noticeably, omitted from the 2012 convention platform. When a kerfuffle erupted over the missing language (as well as the elimination of any reference to God), Democratic surrogates again leapt into action.

Convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa, the Democrat Mayor of Los Angeles, presided over a session to amend the platform and add the sentence back in. Yet, a vocal segment of the convention delegates – certainly more than the one third needed to block such an amendment – voted against the proposed amendment.

Clearly shaken and noticeably unsure that the required two-thirds majority existed to approve the amendment, Mayor Villaraigos called the vote two more times. While it remained equally inconclusive, he nonetheless proclaimed that, “in the opinion of the chair, two-thirds have voted in the affirmative” to approve the amendment.

The honesty of that assessment, however, was belied by a screen shot of the teleprompter showing that Mayor Villaraigos had been prompted in advance to utter those words – apparently without any regard for the truth of the circumstances unfolding before him.

Ms. Wasserman Schultz and other Democratic minions were then promptly dispatched to address the debacle of the unconvincing amendment. Ms. Wasserman Schultz amazingly proclaimed that there had been “no discord,” when the discord was there for all to see.

She also deemed the original elimination of the sentence on Jerusalem to have been a “technical omission.” Senator Charles Schumer characterized it as a “mistake,” suggesting that it “was just sort of left out.” Both proclaimed that it was added back in because President Obama believes that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital, and President Obama ordered that the sentence be reinserted.

As even a casual observer of the political process knows, a threshold step in constructing a party platform is a plank-by-plank review of the previous platform. Thus, with the Jerusalem language having been prominently featured in the previous platform of 2008, someone had to have affirmatively removed that language. So much for technicalities or mistakes.

The notion that President Obama always opposed the elimination of the Jerusalem capital reference is equally unsupportable. Clearly, the President had representation at the platform committee. That person would most certainly have seized upon and opposed the elimination of such a sensitive sentence – if that was in fact the President’s desire.

Yet, one need look no further than to the Obama State Department on the day after the platform amendment. When asked at a daily press briefing which city the United States recognizes as the capital of Israel, spokesperson Patrick Ventrell refused to identify Jerusalem.

Unfortunately, citizens have come to expect that politicians will stretch the truth from time-to-time for political gain. Yet, at some point, enough is enough.

Democrats have now repeatedly been proved disingenuous when trying to persuade audiences about President Obama’s stance on Israel. Is there really any reason to believe anything further that they say about it?

About the Author
Aron U. Raskas is an attorney in Miami, Florida.