A minor revision of the Democratic Party’s platform statement on Jerusalem has led to one of the biggest faux-controversies to emerge during the Charlotte convention. The 2012 platform does not refer to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, while the 2008 document did, prompting an attack from Mitt Romney:

It is unfortunate that the entire Democratic Party has embraced President Obama’s shameful refusal to acknowledge that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital…Four years of President Obama’s repeated attempts to create distance between the United States and our cherished ally have led the Democratic Party to remove from their platform an unequivocal acknowledgment of a simple reality. As president, I will restore our relationship with Israel and stand shoulder to shoulder with our close ally.

The reasoning here is transparently silly. The 2012 Republican platform also revised its language on Jerusalem, removing language from the 2008 version that pledged both to move the American embassy to Jerusalem and to keep Jerusalem “undivided.” Does that mean a Romney administration would oppose the idea of an undivided Jerusalem that houses the American embassy?

Moreover, if official recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital was critical to U.S.-Israel relationship, the alliance would have been on its deathbed for the past three American administrations. And virtually every country in the world does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, with most holding that the status of Jerusalem can only be decided through Israeli-Palestinian negotiations given competing claims to the city. Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama all have refused to implement a 1995 Congressional directive asking for the U.S. Embassy to be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, as treating Jerusalem as Israel’s official capital either by moving the embassy or an official declaration would be perceived as privileging Israel’s claim, limiting America’s ability to serve as a neutral arbiter between Israelis and Palestinians.

Hence, the Obama administration is in step with the international community and previous administrations in holding that the final status of Jerusalem is an issue to be settled in negotiations. While presidential candidates often refer to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital (as Obama did) or pledge to move the Embassy, their positions change quickly upon taking office. A Democratic official discussing the platform controversy made plain why this is the case, saying “There’s a difference between running for president and governing. … And when you govern on this issue, the official position of the United States has been for years and from administrations of both parties that the status of Jerusalem is a final-status issue.” It’s not as if a lack of American recognition will affect the fact on the ground that Jerusalem serves as Israel’s capital for the purposes of running its local government.

But the underlying theme behind the right-wing hysteria over the Jerusalem language is the bogus charge that Obama isn’t sufficiently pro-Israel. This is nonsense of course. Even Israel’s leaders have repeatedly said as much.

Gen. James Amos, commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, said at a National Press Club luncheon last week that he fully supports the military’s push toward greater use of clean energy, Foreign Policy reports:

“I tell you what, I support efforts for alternative fuel. We’re doing a lot right now in our little small piece of the world in Afghanistan, in combat outposts with regards to alternative fuel,” he said at a National Press Club luncheon, citing the Marine Corps’ use of solar and wind-derived energy while discussing the Navy’s efforts. “I’m a big believer in biofuels, excuse me, in alternative fuels — in our case, alternative energy — and the biofuel, I think, is probably just one step along the way.”

Amos’s comment comes as the GOP is trying to block the Navy’s push for a “Great Green Fleet,” one that relies more on clean biofuels. Back in May, House Republicans included a measure in the defense authorization bill prohibiting the Defense Department from purchasing any alternative fuels that cost more than “traditional fossil fuel” (a move that would effectively eliminate biofuels from contention as its small market share means higher prices). The Senate followed suit but a subcommittee in the upper chamber later approved legislation to continue funding for the Pentagon’s use of biofuels.

Amos isn’t the first high-ranking U.S. military official to publicly support the military’s move toward alternative energy. Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said last year that the military would continue efforts to become more fuel efficient and invest in clean energy technology. “Fundamentally, we know that saving energy saves lives,” Dempsey said, adding, “I’ll do everything I can as chairman to support these innovations and to get the right emerging technologies into our troops’ hands as soon as possible. … We may have the opportunity to increase capability and save money.”

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) attacked Navy Secretary Ray Mabus — who has led the charge pushing for the “Great Green Fleet” — earlier this year for advocating for a greener fleet. “Shouldn’t we refocus our priorities and make those things our priorities instead of advancing a biofuels market?” Forbes asked Mabus during a House hearing in May. “You’re not the secretary of the energy. You’re the secretary of the Navy.”

While Republicans seem comfortable attacking Mabus — a political appointee — it remains unclear at this point whether they will publicly criticize Gen. Dempsey or Gen. Amos for supporting the military’s use of alternative energy. But perhaps continued campaign contributions from their friends in the oil and gas industry might push them along?