Jerusalem or God, or both?

Submitted by Manuel Matamoros (United States), Sep 11, 2012 at 11:21

While I agree with Dr. Pipes' analysis, I do just have to say two things out of fairness and/or counterpoints.

1. Everyone on the Right/GOP side appears to be using the ramming of J'lem and God back into the Dem. Party platform to their advantage in the sense that, when they want to make the Dems seem less pro-Israel they say that the delegates were protesting putting J'lem back in; but when they want the Dems to seem anti-God, they say it was the inclusion of God in the platform that they were protesting.

What Dr. Pipes does not take into account is, to what degree were the protesters objecting to the inclusion of God vs. J'lem? We don't know since it was both that were being rammed back in, not just one at a time.

2. I don't interpret what the parlimentarian said as being her telling Villaraigosa to just declare victory and move on. I interpreted it, and I think it's at least a fair interpretation, to say that she was telling him that the delegates will vote how the delegates will vote and you have to make a ruling and/or deal with it. He made a ruling. Now, of course, the language being suggested in the prompter like that is pretty damning for Villaraigosa, but not for the parliamentarian.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".