Reactions to Hagel nomination fast and furious and why I have lost any respect I ever had for Ed Koch
The reactions to Chuck Hagel's nomination to be Secretary of Defense of the United States has been fast and furious. And one of them - Ed Koch's - has caused me to lose all respect for someone who was a contemporary of my late parents. But more on that below.
NBC's Chuck Todd reported on Monday morning that as many as 10 Democratic Senators may vote against Hagel.
Yes that was Chuck Schumer (D-NY) you saw at the end of that clip, but Jennifer Rubin reports that Schumer has been entirely noncommittal. Here's what she reports about some other Senators.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), among
the first to sound the alarm on Hagel, put out a blistering statement
suggesting that Republican votes will be hard to round up: “I will not
support Chuck Hagel’s nomination to the Department of Defense. His
record and past statements, particularly with respect to rogue nations
like Iran, are extremely concerning to me. . . . As Iran becomes
increasingly hostile and gains influence in the region, the worst
possible message we could send to our friend Israel and the rest of our
allies in the Middle East is Chuck Hagel.”
It was noteworthy that, while leaking the Hagel nomination over the
weekend, the administration lined up no support from Senate Democrats
for the Sunday shows. As a result, Republicans including Cornyn, Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and
freshman Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) to one degree or another bashed Hagel
while prominent Democrats like Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) were entirely
noncommittal. This morning both Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and potential New Jersey Senate candidate Mayor Cory Booker expressed concerns
about Hagel. Offices of Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Kirsten
Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) would not provide comment despite our repeated
attempts to ascertain the views of these critical Democrats. (Imagine
the position they’d be in if 30 to 40 Senate Republicans voted no.) It
seems they are hoping that Hagel will blow himself up before or during
the hearing and they’ll be spared an actual vote when he limps off the
stage. (Profiles in courage they are not.)
Here's Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md) on radio Monday morning.
“Frankly, I thought that there would come a time when he would renege
on what he conveyed on his support of Israel,” said Koch, adding, “it
comes a little earlier than I thought it would.”
“It’s very disappointing, I believe he will ultimately regret it,”
Koch said, “and it undoubtedly will reduce support for him in the Jewish
community, but I don’t think he (the President) worries about that now
that the election is over.”
Koch explained to The Algemeiner why he decided to back the
President’s re-election even though he says he suspected that Obama
would backtrack on his pro-Israel overtures. “I did what I thought was
warranted and intelligent,” he said, “He was going to win! There was no
question about it. I thought it would be helpful to have a Jewish voice
there, being able to communicate.”
The Mayor says he has no regrets, “it’s wouldn’t make any difference.
The Jews were going to vote for him no matter what. And that’s the
nature of the Jews. They are always very solicitous of everybody else
except there own needs and community.”
Bulldung, Ed! Obama wasn't 'going to win anyway' until at least the end of October, if at all. You just didn't have the junk to call on people to vote for a Republican, did you? Do you have a brain or do you just jerk your knee before you talk?
Koch goes on to call the Hagel vote a 'critical test' for Senator Charles Schumer. I think Schumer needs to go onto Nachum Segal's JM in the AM again to learn how to open his mouth. And I think Koch needs to retire and keep his gutless mouth shut. This election was a test for whether Ed Koch was capable of placing Israel ahead of his loyalty to the Democratic party's machine. Sadly, Koch failed.
I have more on Hagel, but this post is getting too long, so it will wait for the next one.
Jeffrey Wiesenfeld begs Ed Koch to come clean and stop supporting Obama
I trust that many of you remember Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, the courageous City University of New York trustee who attempted to deny an honorary degree to anti-Israel playwright (and college classmate of Carl in Jerusalem) Tony Kushner.
Wiesenfeld has written a letter to former New York City Mayor Ed Koch, a prominent Obama supporter who at one time defected from Obama's camp due to Obama's lack of support for Israel. I received the letter from Ricky G, and have been asked to share it with you.
Editors - Kindly publish as you see
fit:
Friends – Circulate.
Dear Friends, Fellow voters and supporters of Israel –
I am sharing an open letter which I have written to Ed Koch, whom I have
known since before his first campaign – in which I was involved early in 1977 –
in other words, quite well for 35
years.
Dear Ed –
You’re a lost cause on this
one– but I do feel a change in the wind.
We’ll win without
you.
I’d have preferred for you that
you be with the winner. But it’s not just about winning – far from it. For me,
it’s about America, Israel and the West.
Note how your commentary
yesterday has no substance whatsoever – rare - very rare – for Ed Koch. And all
that you proclaim about “solvency, stability” and the like – you can’t possibly
believe that. Here is the purest effect of “charm” ever seen: the “charm” that
Barack Obama has showered upon you. And why shouldn’t he? He’s desperate. The
superfluous use of the yellow fowl proves it. You mention Obama’s
“intelligence.” However, his entire administration has been about intellectual
dishonesty, equivocation and worst of all, weakness in the international sphere.
You support him despite your continuous admonitions of distrust for him on
Israel.
To paraphrase: “In his heart,
he (Ed) knows he (Romney) is right.”
All those who have admired you
since the 1970’s – the same time during which we admired another of the great
Democrats, Henry “Scoop” Jackson – will not be with you this
time.
This should have been a
pinnacle of positive and intellectually honest influence for
you.
I still love you and I tell you
so right here, and can never forget the early opportunities I had from you and
your administration, but to believe that you are sincere in your professed
advocacy for REELECTION of President Obama is to stop believing in Ed Koch. I
prefer not to do that.
Barack Hussein Obama thinks he can talk anyone into anything, and that is apparently at least true with respect to former New York City Mayor Ed Koch. In an earlier post, I noted that Koch is suddenly supporting Obama. In this interview with the Jewish Week, Koch explains why (Hat Tip: NY Nana).
How did you come to make up with Obama?I was invited to meet with him [after the Turner victory] when he was in New York for his United Nations speech opposing Palestinian statehood. It was a magnificent speech. In our meeting the president said he didn’t know why Jews are upset with him, that he has always been supportive of Israel. He spoke for 20 minutes about his commitment. Then he said “your turn,” and I spoke for 10 minutes. I described the narrative of the Jewish people living in Israel for 3,000 years, not being put there after the Holocaust [as the Palestinians claim]. And I said that the president, in his speech [last May] about the 1967 borders, should have insisted that Hamas first give up its charter [calling for the destruction of Israel and the Jews].
The president said, “didn’t I say that?” And I said, “no.” I had to stand up [for Israel]. Then he said, “Ed, your voice is heard outside of New York; let’s stay in touch.”
I believe he is sincere, and what he said was real. I decided I wasn’t going to make him entreat me any further, so I decided I’ll get on the bus again [and support him].
What’s your take on the Republican presidential candidates?
I like [former House Speaker Newt] Gingrich, and I like them all [on Israel] except for Ron Paul, who is David Duke without an armband.
You’ve crossed party lines in supporting different candidates. How do you make that determination?
I’m a proud Democrat, but I cross party lines if the Democrat is not the best candidate. All things being equal, I vote for the Democrat because the Democratic policies are better. Israel is one of my top priorities, but it’s not the only one.
So Koch is supporting Obama because Obama now believes (but never even said) that Hamas should give its word not to destroy Israel if Israel sets itself up in suicide boundaries? Are all American Jewish Democrats suckers like this?
Say it ain't so: Ed Koch working for Obama's reelection
And I thought former New York City Mayor Ed Koch was such a smart guy. This is from an article about an Obama fundraiser for Jewish Democrats.
The meeting was held in a gourmet restaurant in Manhattan's Upper East Side and was attended by 100 representatives of the Jewish community who collectively donated some $500,000 to Obama's campaign.
Among the participants was former New York Mayor Ed Koch, who despite being a democrat fiercely criticized the president during his conflict with Netanyahu on the settlement construction issue. Koch has since changed his views and is wielding his influence in the Jewish community to get Obama reelected.
Last week, Tom Friedman wrote an article in the New York Times, in which he warned Prime Minister Netanyahu that his ovation in Congress a few months ago was "bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."
The reaction has been furious, and the Jewish Week reported on Tuesday that Friedman now regrets the use of the term "bought and paid for" and wishes he had written "engineered" instead - as if that would have made it any better.
“In retrospect I probably should have used a more precise term like ‘engineered’ by the Israel lobby — a term that does not suggest grand conspiracy theories that I don’t subscribe to,” Friedman said. “It would have helped people focus on my argument, which I stand by 100 percent.”
Friedman still claims to be a supporter of Israel, albeit one whose column won the approbation of none other than Stephen Walt. This is from the Jewish Week again.
Friedman maintains that he has not changed in his unswerving support for the State of Israel, despite his sometimes sharp criticism of Jerusalem’s policies. He has noted that his was a lonely voice of support for Israel in the mainstream press during the Israeli army’s military campaigns against Hamas and Hezbollah.
“I’m still the same person,” he said, “but I’m reflecting some deep concerns.”
Tom Friedman is a fine writer with a high public profile. Because he is Jewish and purports to be a supporter of Israel, he apparently believes that that gives him license to constantly criticize the Jewish state and its allies. This week, his attacks were especially outrageous and irresponsible. He attacked Newt Gingrich, Republican candidate for President for his “grovel” before a Jewish audience “by suggesting that the Palestinians are an ‘invented’ people and not a real nation entitled to a state.” I watched the Republican candidates debate before the Republican Jewish Coalition on television, to which he alludes. Gingrich was making an historical point that Palestinians had been part of south Syria and not a separate nation under the Ottoman Empire. Indeed when Romney and Paul both chastised Gingrich for making the historical reference saying it was not helpful to the situation, and the moderator asked each if Gingrich was factually correct, they both said “yes.”
Friedman also accused Gingrich of seeking to deny the Palestinians their own state. But Gingrich never said that, and I have no doubt that he like most American supporters of Israel (including myself), most Israelis and the Prime Minister of Israel Bibi Netanyahu and his predecessors since Oslo support a two-state solution. Friedman outrageously wrote that perhaps Gingrich supports “evict[ing] the West Bank Palestinians through ethnic cleansing.” Gingrich never said any such thing. Friedman offers a third alternative as a possible Gingrich option: one state which would overwhelm Israel’s Jewish citizens, which Gingrich never proposed. The historical fact on Palestinian roots makes no difference today since the Palestinians now perceive themselves and are perceived by others as having a national identity.
Friedman, in the same column, went on to attack Romney for being too willing to support the Israeli government in its goals, accusing him of wanting the U.S. to “serve as [Israel’s] ATM and shut up.” This is an outrageous remark by Friedman.
Friedman writes that the extraordinary positive reception that Netanyahu received when he spoke at the joint session of Congress was “not for his politics” but “bought and paid for by the Israeli lobby.” Coming from an alleged supporter of Israel, a Jew himself, this canard is especially offensive. This infamous statement will be joined with the Protocols of Zion, one a libel, the other a forgery – because of the status of its author – and used around the world by those who hate the Jews and Israel. No explanation or apology on the part of Friedman can undo the damage.
Friedman attacks the foreign minister of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman – originally from Russia – for not denouncing the recent election in Russia as fraudulent. How foolish can Friedman be to demand such masochistic behavior on the part of the Israeli government? Russia supplies military arms to Syria and supports Iran and Friedman wants the Israeli government to further antagonize Putin, when the Israeli foreign minister is seeking to woo Putin to Israel’s side? Friedman points to the fact that Israel’s representatives receive a hard time on college campuses. I believe they do in part because of the inciting comments of columnists like Friedman.
Read the whole thing. Because of the platform from which he writes, Friedman will continue to be read and debated by the Jewish community. At least we should not relate to his writing as a gospel. His columns should be read with a critical eye and every 'fact' he cites should be checked and rechecked. The man cannot be trusted.
To all “friends and defenders” of Israel, especially such high-profile shtarkers like Alan Dershowitz, the AJC’s David Harris, the CFR’s Elliot Abrams and Ed Koch: You have expressed disappointment and dismay that “the 20-year-old peace process” has not met its objective – peace. In fact, it has only led to war and bloodshed and, as we saw last week, Israel's diplomatic isolation and the PLO’s violation of the Oslo accords. Given this trajectory, how many more “peace” dead ends would it take before you start recommending that Israel abandon the "peace process" for another policy that would be less life-threatening and more productive?
Please express your answer as a time limit, number of occurrences, or a body count.
Hudson Institute Conference on the Perils of Global Intolerance: The United Nations and Durban III
A little surprise for all of you. I’m attending the Hudson Institute Conference on the Perils of Global Intolerance: The United Nations and Durban III. I got here a bit late – it took 45 minutes to get through security. Yuli Edelstein, Israel’s Minister of Public Affairs and the Diaspora now speaking. Says that human rights groups go to Israel and not to Syria because it takes months to get a visa for ten days, then once you get there you sit in your hotel for nine days and then they send you for an official tour. Edelstein says that the same people who once hijacked planes and kidnapped reporters have now hijacked the human rights agenda. He says we need to concentrate on human rights as no more than any other part of the UN charter and then we will be able to combat the hijackers. Anne Bayefsky announces that the UN has just moved up the adoption of the third Durban declaration under a proposal by Sudan. Alan Dershowitz now speaking. One reason there is no peace in the Middle East can be summarized in two letters: UN. They have disincentivized the Palestinians from negotiating a reasonable compromise. He cites several examples where there were genocides going on in the world, and all the UN focused on was Israel. UN has encouraged anti-Semitism, racism and genocide and has made Durban into another Nuremberg. By the way, this conference is being webcast by PJ Media (just saw on the agenda). Conference is in a small room and it’s packed. Still haven’t seen my friend Ed Morrissey, who is here. Back to Dershowitz – UN has become main advocacy arm of Palestinians at the expense of so many others who are being oppressed. The nations will take a vote which will be described as ‘implementing the two-state solution’ but states that don’t recognize Israel are voting for a final solution for Israel. Dershowitz says that any state that does not recognize Israel ought not to be able to vote. Source of law in ‘Palestine’ will be Sharia law. No worries from Jews because they won’t allow any although they are trying to spin it as though they only don’t want ‘settlers.’ First Judenrein state since Nazi Germany. They will have a ‘law of return’ while they criticize Israel for having a law of return. Why should they compromise when they get the ’67 borders to start the game? Abu Mazen told Dersshowitz that real estate is valued based on location. If you want the Western Wall you have to give thousands of acres. The same goes for access roads to Hebrew U and the Jewish quarter of the Old City. Dershowitz says that he helped draft 242 as an aide to Arthur Goldberg. Russians and French wanted to say “the” territories but US and UK said no and that version won out. There is no doubt that under 242 they’re not supposed to start from the ’67 border. He refers to op-ed by Olmert. UN happy to let ‘Palestine’ by militarized. So why should the ‘Palestinians’ compromise. How dare war mongering countries lecture Israel? He lists lots of countries – Turkey is high on the list and he refers specifically to the Mavi Marmara incident. He slams Bishop Tutu for saying Israel not sufficiently Christian for his tastes. US has adopted Israel’s methods of targeted assassinations using drones. Israel has become the model of democracy. Dershowitz gets a standing ovation. He did not once mention ‘settlements.’ Next up is Ed Koch. Koch says Obama should be applauded for his UN speech. Says he hopes to be a supporter of Obama again. Says Israel can’t sit with Hamas unless and until it gives up terrorism. Hamas says that every Jew who entered historic Palestine since 1917 and Hamas is likely to be the senior partner in the ‘Palestinian Authority’ eventually. How can you have ‘agreed upon swaps’ with a terror organization that says that Tel Aviv is theirs. You can’t expect Israel to sit down with Hamas. Koch: We can’t end the United Nations because every house needs a cesspool. He says there’s a tendency among Jews to reject Christian fundamentalist support of Israel. “Such Jews are nuts.” Koch says that when you see the Messiah, ask if he’s Jewish and then ask if it’s first visit or his second. If it’s his first, they have to convert. Dore Gold is next and says that if there’s anything good about UNSCR 1701 it’s because John Bolton was there and hammered in security clauses. Gold shows a Powerpoint presentation on Resolution 1701. Included El-Khiam which looks remarkably like Gaza City. 25,000 people and full of weapons. Whose civilians do we protect – ours or theirs? This is the result of the Goldstone Report. Photo of El Khiam released for the first time today – it shows map of weapons storage. Gold blasts Olmert for suggesting virtually full withdrawal from West Bank and having Jerusalem administered by Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the US. Lunch break to listen to Ahmadinejad at the United Nations across the street.
Good morning to all of you from the Garden State. Okay, let's see who figures that out (answers only by private email). I'm not going to post too much tonight (it's 1:00 am here) because I have a breakfast meeting in what is referred to in these parts as "the City" tomorrow morning.
In a story that the inimitable Drudge Report is calling "Revenge of the Jews" (see below for screen cap), Republican Bob Turner has beaten Democrat (and Orthodox Jew) David Weprin in a Special Election for the Congressional seat for the 9th District of New York, the seat formerly occupied by Robert Weiner.
Retired media executive and political novice Bob Turner defeated Democratic state Assemblyman David Weprin on Tuesday in the special election to fill the seat vacated by Weiner, a seven-term Democrat who resigned in June.
With more than 80 percent of precincts reporting, Turner had 54 percent of the vote to Weprin's 46 percent in unofficial results.
"We've been asked by the people of this district to send a message to Washington," Turner told supporters after the landmark win. "I hope they hear it loud and clear. We've been told this is a referendum. Mr. President, we are on the wrong track. We have had it with an irresponsible fiscal policy which endangers the entire economy."
Weprin did not immediately concede.
The heavily Democratic district, which spans parts of Queens and Brooklyn, had never sent a Republican to the House. But frustration with the continued weak national economy gave Republicans the edge.
So then why is Drudge calling this "Revenge of the Jews"? Are Walt and Mearsheimer writing his headlines (as one of my lawyer friends quipped in an email)?
Weprin became embroiled in New York-centric disputes over Israel and gay marriage, which cost him some support among Jewish voters.
Orthodox Jews, who tend to be conservative on social issues, expressed anger over Weprin's vote in the Assembly to legalize gay marriage. In July, New York became one of six states to recognize same-sex nuptials.
Former Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat, endorsed Turner in July as a way to "send a message" to Obama on his policies toward Israel. And Weprin was challenged on his support of a proposed Islamic center and mosque near the World Trade Center site, in lower Manhattan.
Got to save that screen cap for next November. Heh.
And to think I'm pretty sure that Weprin used to pray in the same Mincha service that I did before I made aliya....
Hudson Institute and Touro College running anti-Durban conference
Hudson Institute and Touro College running a conference on September 22 - the day of the Durban III conference - between 9:00 am and 6:00 pm. The conference is entitled The Perils of Global Intolerance: the United Nations & "Durban III" and will take place at the UN Millenium Plaza Hotel.
The Hudson Institute and the Touro College Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust today announced an historic conference targeting manifestations of racism, anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance at the United Nations. The conference will coincide with the highly controversial UN event known as “Durban III.” Organizers were galvanized, according to Anne Bayefsky, a Senior Fellow of the Hudson Institute and Director of the Touro College Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, after learning that “Americans will be mourning the 10th anniversary of September 11, 2001 at the same time as the United Nations will appear to be legitimizing the kind of intolerance that drives terrorism itself.”
"Durban III" is intended to "commemorate" the 10th anniversary of the UN-sponsored anti-Semitic hatefest that took place in Durban, South Africa in 2001. The final product of that conference – the Durban Declaration – charged Israel with racism, the only one of the UN's 192 state members so accused. Led by Congressman and Holocaust survivor Tom Lantos, the United States – along with Israel – walked out of Durban I in disgust.
According to conference organizer, Anne Bayefsky, a Senior Fellow of the Hudson Institute and Director of the Touro College Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, "The Durban conference legitimized hate speech on a global scale." At the widely-perceived racist "anti-racism" conference, the streets were filled with signs such as "for the liberation of Quds machine guns based on faith and Islam must be used," and handouts with Hitler's photo read "What if I had won? The good things: there would be no Israel..." Durban I ended three days before 9/11. The Durban Review Conference, or Durban II, was held in Geneva in 2009, and the only world leader to attend was Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Organizers of the "Perils of Global Intolerance" conference were galvanized, Bayefsky said, after learning that "Americans will be mourning the 10th anniversary of September 11, 2001 at the same time as the United Nations is legitimizing the kind of intolerance that drives terrorism in the first place."
The one-day conference will be a call to action. "Given the events that Durban III is intended to commemorate," Bayefsky noted, "the UN will sadly serve as a global platform to promote the inverse of its original purposes and principles. It is imperative to deny legitimacy to prejudice and the Durban Declaration."
A Speakers List of International Prominence
The conference has gathered an impressive array of distinguished speakers from three continents, including Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Elie Wiesel, former US UN Ambassador John Bolton, former Governor Mike Huckabee, world-renowned scholar Bernard Lewis, Ronald Lauder is the current President of the World Jewish Congress, Academy-award winning actor Jon Voight, former New York City Mayor Ed Koch, Harvard Professor and best-selling author Alan Dershowitz, a psychologist named one of Time Magazine's 100 most influential people in the world Wafa Sultan, Sudanese human rights activist Simon Deng, former Israeli UN Ambassador Dore Gold, Harvard Professor and National Humanities Medal recipient Ruth Wisse, veteran award-winning journalist Khaled Abu Toameh, Hoover Institution Fellow and National Humanities Medal recipient Shelby Steele, bestselling author and award-winning UK journalist Douglas Murray, and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy Zuhdi Jasser.
Political and other leaders who have a genuine interest in combating xenophobia will be provided a crucial forum to speak with passion about their concerns, and to distance America and decent people everywhere from a multilateralism divorced from fundamental freedoms and inalienable rights.
Read the whole thing. If any of you (especially fellow bloggers) are planning to go, please let me know via email. Yes, I would love to go....
In a blow to President Obama. former New York City Mayor and Democratic Congressman Edward I. Koch says that he may back the Republican candidate in the special election to replace Anthony Weiner on September 13.
In "a shot across President Obama's bow," Democratic former Mayor Ed Koch yesterday urged voters in Queens and Brooklyn to make "history" by voting for the Republican candidate to replace randy ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner in the Sept. 13 special election -- as a protest against the White House's policy on Israel.
Koch -- a staunch ally of Israel -- said he would "vote for Bob Turner" if the Republican-Conservative candidate backs Israel and opposes cutbacks to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
"If Jewish New Yorkers and others who support Israel were to turn away from the Democratic Party in that congressional election and elect the Republican candidate to Congress in 2011, it might very well cause President Obama to change his hostile position on the state of Israel and to re-establish the special relationship presidents before him had supported," Koch said in his weekly commentary.
Koch likened the situation to Republican Scott Brown winning the Massachusetts Senate seat long occupied by Ted Kennedy.
"I want to put a shot across Obama's bow," Koch said in an interview.
I wouldn't believe it if Obama claimed he wanted to restore the 'special relationship' with Israel. He's just electioneering.
At least two prominent American Jews are rethinking their support for Barack Hussein Obama: Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch (pictured) and billionaire publisher Mort Zuckerman (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
"He has in effect sought to reduce Israel's negotiation power and I condemn him for that," former New York Mayor Ed Koch told Reuters.
Koch said he might not campaign or vote for Obama if Republicans nominate a pro-Israel candidate who offers an alternative to recent austere budgetary measures backed by Republicans in Congress.
Koch donated $2,300 to Obama's campaign in 2008, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission.
"I believed that then-Senator Obama would be as good as John McCain based on his statements at the time and based on his support of Israel. It turns out I was wrong," he said.
...
"I have spoken to a lot of people in the last couple of days -- former supporters -- who are very upset and feel alienated," billionaire real estate developer and publisher Mortimer Zuckerman said.
"He'll get less political support, fewer activists for his campaign, and I am sure that will extend to financial support as well."
Zuckerman backed Obama during his 2008 presidential run and the newspaper he owns, the New York Daily News, endorsed the president.
I wish this were a trend, but I'm skeptical, unfortunately. Koch is nothing new. He's said before that he believes he was mistaken in supporting Obama. Zuckerman hasn't been quite as explicit, but he's also given some hints that he was dissatisfied with Obama. Is this a trend? I'd like to see more evidence.
Tablet Magazine interviews former New York City Mayor and Congressman Ed Koch. Some highlights:
When I asked Koch about the importance of Judaism in his life, he called out to his secretary. “Jody! Bring him the tombstone!” She handed me a copy of Koch’s pre-written epitaph: “He was fiercely proud of his Jewish faith. He fiercely defended the City of New York, and he fiercely loved the people of the City of New York.” The headstone also quotes Daniel Pearl’s last words—“My father is Jewish, my mother is Jewish, I am Jewish”—and notes that these words were spoken “immediately before his beheading by an Islamic terrorist.” Koch believes in God but describes himself as secular.
...
When I ran for a fourth term, I got 42 percent of the vote [in the Democratic primary], and David Dinkins won. What is interesting is that I’m Jewish, but my biggest supporters were Catholic. Italian and Irish Catholic. I generally, over the years, would get 81 percent of their vote. With Jews, I would get 73 percent. People say, “How is that possible? You’re a Jewish boy!” And the answer is that the liberal wing of the Jewish nation doesn’t find me liberal enough. Because I’m a liberal with sanity.
What are some specific issues on which you clash with liberal Jews?
Well, for example, the death penalty. I have supported the death penalty from the beginning of my professional life, when I ran for Congress. I believe it’s liberal, if you believe that protecting society is liberal.
...
Do you ever feel that American Jews are afraid to support Israel?
I know there was a dearth of support when Obama changed the policy of the United States towards Israel not very long ago. I’m very proud that I aroused the Jewish community and the Christian pro-Israel community and Obama changed his anti-Israel position, most illustrative of that being when he insulted Bibi Netanyahu. As you undoubtedly know, when George Bush ran for reelection—not election—when he was running against, what’s his name—John, Massachusetts …
Kerry.
Kerry, right. Kerry was not good on Israel, in my judgment. So I supported Bush. And I said at the time, publicly, “I don’t agree with him on a single domestic issue. But on the issue of fighting Islamic terrorism”—which, to me, is more important than any other issue, not just because of Israel; it is because Islamic terrorism is seeking to destroy Western civilization. I said, “The Democratic party doesn’t understand that.” The Republican party did. I was shocked when I saw a poll which said that of Democrats, 48 percent supported Israel. 48 percent! Republicans, 70 percent. So I stood up and supported Bush. I have no regrets.
So why didn’t you support John McCain in 2008?
Well, because I’m a Democrat, and I believed that Obama was as good as McCain.
And now you feel you were misled?
I don’t say misled. I misjudged.
I don't agree with everything he says (especially the part about a 'two-state solution'), but overall he's pretty good.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
