By Joel Magalnick, JTNews Correspondent
When King County Democrats voted to put an anti-Israel amendment into its platform on Saturday, it caused a stir that ended up on national radio.
The statement, introduced by Naseem Tuffaha, the director of the Seattle chapter of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, seeks “to withhold U.S. tax dollars from Israel while it is in violation of international law.”
According to Greg Rodriguez, chair of the King County Democratic Central Committee, the amendment came near the end of a long day of proposals – approximately 235 resolutions were suggested to be added to the county’s party platform – after many delegates had gone home, and the rules were changed to give less time to each argument.
According to Rodriguez, the amendment was by far the most controversial and the most narrowly passed. When the first voice-vote failed, he said, the sponsors forced a hand count, which resulted in the win.
“There are obviously people who support it,” said Rodriguez. “I would honestly believe that a majority of Democrats would not.”
“It offers an opportunity,” said Rainer Waldman Adkins, who was present for the vote on this amendment. “If there’s a vacuum, that’s when the negative activity begins.”
Adkins, with fellow delegate Linda Clifton, submitted another resolution that called for Democrats to support an ongoing peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. [see Letters, page 3, for further information]
Rodriguez said that though he is concerned about the wording of the amendment, what most concerns him is the “exceptionalism” of the statement, and how it singles out one country.
“It’s too complex of an issue, and obviously people are very passionate about it to have something that’s so specific and basic that targets Israel,” he said.
At this point, there is no guarantee that the amendment will make it into the state’s Democratic platform.
“If it were proposed at the state level, I would be one of the first to stand up and argue against it,” Rodriguez said.
“There are a bunch more hoops to go through before this can officially be part of any platform,” said Remy Trupin, Government Affairs Director of the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle.
“I doubt whether this is the view of the party,” he continued. “It’s unlikely that this resolution will stand, but we’re working to engage with delegates and party officials to educate them about this, and to get rid of the resolution and continue their support for ongoing peace process in the Middle East.”
What worries both Trupin and Rodriguez is that this amendment will be blown out of proportion. Already, the Republican Jewish Coalition’s executive director, Matthew Brooks, has called on the King County Democrats and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry to “publicly repudiate this outrageous position.”
On Tuesday, Rodriguez spoke about the issue on Michael Medved’s nationally syndicated radio show, which plunged the story into the national spotlight.
“What’s interesting,” Rodriguez noted on Wednesday, “is that nobody ever looks at the platform until something like this happens.”
He also said that party candidates may not even pay attention to the platform, let alone agree with all of its resolutions. For the most part, however, Rodriguez said the discussion on by both sides of the issue has been focused on working through the controversy.
“I’ve been heartened by the rational communication around it all, especially from the Israeli community and the American Jewish community,” he said.
Trupin expressed concern about disenfranchisement on both sides of the aisle because of resolutions such as these. “It’s a party platform, which is important,” he said, “but on the other hand, the people who develop a party platform are a small group of people that are highly engaged.
“I think the real issue is peace for Israel, security for Israel, and not partisan politics,” he added.
Trupin urged people with concerns about controversial issues to become engaged and not step back from the political process. Adkins, who has been speaking to fellow Democrats about the amendment since its passage, said most would prefer to not see resolutions such as this one.
“They really want moderate, pragmatic language they can support, and that puts the U.S. in a role of engagement that’s functional for both the Israelis and Palestinians,” he said.