Jump to Navigation

Israel

Restoring American Sovereignty and Leadership > International Relations > Israel
The United States and Israel share a special relationship. We support military and economic assistance and recognition that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths. We encourage peace talks between Israel and Palestinians in the context of Israel's fundamental right to exist. We support the continuation of non-recognition of terrorist organizations.We believe that the United States and Israel share a special long-standing relationship based on shared values, a mutual commitment to a republican form of government, and a strategic alliance that benefits both nations. Our foreign policy with Israel should reflect the special nature of this relationship through continued military and economic assistance and recognition that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths. We believe that the US Embassy should be located in Jerusalem. In our diplomatic dealings with Israel, we encourage the continuation of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, but oppose pressuring Israel to make concessions it believes would jeopardize its security, including the trading of land for the recognition of its right to exist. We call on the U.S. to cease strong arming Israel through prior agreements with the understanding of delivering equipment to them to defend themselves in exchange for future diplomatic concessions, such as giving up land to the Palestinians on the West Bank. We support the continuation of non-recognition of terrorist nations and organizations. Our policy is based on God's biblical promise to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel and we further invite other nations and organizations to enjoy the benefits of that promise.

The plank is terribly wordy.

The Biblical citation is a quite literalist Biblical interpretation. It does not represent a consensus view even within Christianity and is utterly inappropriate for a platform document.

Fault:

Comments

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Random plank

Preserving American Freedom > Limiting the Expanse of Government Power > Free Speech for the Clergy
We urge change of the Internal Revenue Code to allow a religious organization to address issues without fear losing its tax-exempt status. We call for repeal of requirements that religious organizations send government any personal information about their contributors.
Reason:

This plank is delusional.

Religious organizations generally have 501(c)(3) status. 501(c)(3)s may engage in issue advocacy. This is specifically allowed under current tax law. What they may not do is participate in "any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office" (link) or engage in a substantial amount of lobbying (link).

Churches are not required to file IRS Form 990. In fact, they are generally exempt from tax-related filings.

misinformed, paranoid

Problems

Show problem parts of the platform:
Platforms promote principles and policies. Planks must not push particular polymorphic political proposals, including bills.about a specific bill (6)
Parts of these were recently implemented.accomplished (11)
Parts of these only promote limited religious viewpoints.advances religious doctrine (8)
Too many positions already overwhelm voters. We cannot add more without a plan to cut ballot complexity.another elected office (6)
The GOP should not be a virulent, anti-homosexual crusade.anti-homosexual crusade (6)
These destroy useful customs or start us down slippery slopes.bad precedent (17)
Cliches belong on the playground, not in serious platforms.cliche (5)
These contradict other planks.contradictory (13)
These simply go too far, overshooting a rational remedy.extreme (25)
These have factual errors.incorrect (11)
These planks advanced contemporary liberal causes or expand government.leftist (22)
These planks require belief in something that is untrue.misinformed (18)
These are not appropriate for a platform document.misuse of platform (6)
These planks have minor punctuation or grammatical errors.needs copyedit (8)
These problems were fixed before the 2008 platform was published.no longer relevant (3)
"Black helicopters" and paranoid conspiracy have no place in our party.paranoid (15)
Parts of these do nothing useful.pointless (61)
These proposals would make our kids stupider.reduces education quality (3)
These planks are internally redundant or repeat other parts of the platform.redundant (41)
These planks should propose a more general solution.too specific (6)
These planks are unclear or unfocused.vague (19)
Puffy prose, hackneyed phrases, and obscure words create pinheaded, unfocused, and inaccessible platforms. Platforms must be simple and direct.wordy (47)

Recent comments