There were Other Anti-Israel Changes to the Democratic Platform

Recently there was a scandal related to the Democratic Party withdrawing their support for Jerusalem as Israel's capital (they put back in their plank supporting Jerusalem as Israel's capital despite significant opposition from delegates).  Well, Jerusalem wasn't the only change in the platform.  Here is an excerpt from the text of their 2008 platform with key parts highlighted:

Our starting point must always be our special relationship with Israel, grounded in shared interests and shared values, and a clear, strong, fundamental commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That commitment, which requires us to ensure that Israel retains a qualitative edge for its national security and its right to selfdefense, is all the more important as we contend with growing threats in the region–a strengthened Iran, a chaotic Iraq, the resurgence of Al Qaeda, the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah. We support the implementation of the memorandum of understanding that pledges $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade to enhance and ensure its security.

 

It is in the best interests of all parties, including the United States, that we take an active role to help secure a lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with a democratic, viable Palestinian state dedicated to living in peace and security side by side with the Jewish State of Israel. To do so, we must help Israel identify and strengthen those partners who are truly committed to peace, while isolating those who seek conflict and instability, and stand with Israel against those who seek its destruction. The United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel's right to exist, and abides by past agreements. Sustained American leadership for peace and security will require patient efforts and the personal commitment of the President of the United States. The creation of a Palestinian state through final status negotiations, together with an international compensation mechanism, should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel. 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. Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.

If you take a look at the 2012 platform section on Israel, none of those bolded segments are actually present.  Therefore it seems that the Democratic Party no longer supports:

• Considering Israel our strongest ally in the region.  I guess it's no secret that Obama prefers the Islamist government in Turkey to the Jews of Israel.
  
• Isolating Hamas until they renounce terrorism.  This is not terribly surprising given Obama is now funneling billions to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  If he is okay with them in Egypt, why wouldn't he be okay with their Palestinian branch in an adjacent country?
• Palestinian "refugees" settling outside of Israel.  This is rather significant since their settlement in Israel would destroy Israel's Jewish character and probably end its days as a democracy that defends personal and religious freedom.
• Considering the return to the 1949 armistice lines as "unrealistic".  I guess it's now completely realistic for Israel to be 9 miles wide with no control over its immigration policy.

Their attempt to fix things by ramming through a change on Jerusalem doesn't alter the fact that the 2012 platform is much less friendly to Israel than the 2008 one.