I have a question for Ed Koch. I think I understand Koch’s basic position on Israel and America’s relationship to Israel. Basically, Israel is entitled to all of Jerusalem as their capital, and it is America’s job to facilitate the theft. I don’t know where Koch gets the rationale for his position, but it comes across fairly clearly. But, just for the sake of argument, Ed, what if the American administration doesn’t share that view? What if they think that Israel is only entitled to land that was set aside for them and ratified by the United Nations? Or, let’s even be more generous and say that Israel can keep some of the land they’ve stolen in the intervening years (say, as compensation for having to defend their acknowledged borders), but they can’t continue to grab more than they have now. And, let’s say that the Israeli prime minister responds, in substance, by telling the American administration that they can go fuck themselves. What then?
How should the president respond? Should he invite the PM to the White House, have a nice photo-op, reiterate his undying commitment to Israel, and then serve him dinner? Is that how a statesman responds to being told to go get fucked?
Because I don’t think that is the proper way to show displeasure, Ed. I don’t think business-as-usual is going to convince Netanyahu or the Israeli public that we don’t recognize and will not countenance the de facto theft of East Jerusalem. You call it “part of Israel’s capital.” No, it isn’t. And if you attempt to make it so, expect the whole world to cry foul. Why should it be any other way? Under what law or principle would it be any other way?
You tell me, Ed, on this Passover evening, why a failure to cede all of Jerusalem to the State of Israel is the second-coming of the Nazis. You insult our president far more than our president insulted Netanyahu. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
