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.
…hawkish conservatives and some Jews, have become so accustomed to seeing Israel as the good guys (which they often are) and the Arabs as bad guys (which they often are), that any other position on any issue is quite literally unthinkable. Such is the legacy of 50-odd years of pro-Israeli press and policies in America.
Thus, Koch has no answer for you. Neither does Dershowitz. They start from the position that Israel is in the right and then reason backwards. There is no convincing such people. There is no reasoning with them either.
However, most Americas aren’t so deeply wedded to Israel. As America’s opinion leaders start ever so slowly to turn away from Israel, a change is coming.
Specifically when have Israel been the good guys?
sometimes, wear the other’s shoes.
I asked for a specific example of when the political entity known as Israel has ever been “the good guy”, and this is supposed to be an answer to my question? It isn’t even on the same planet as my question.
Ed Koch should be behind the president on these matters, not trying to undermine him.
If the position of Israel undermines US national security, Koch`s position shows where his interests are, in a foreign country.
Shame on Koch, someone I thought better of till I read his opinion piece.
I also didn`t like him bring up the passover, as a factor in why some should react to the White House meeting, as being “blatantly hostile”, or showing “discourtesy”, even though those qualifiers were in a different paragraph than “the passover”.
People like Ed Koch tend to confirm the unfortunate allegation that Jewish Americans have divided loyalty. Most do not, but unfortunately, some do, and in some people’s minds the exception proves the stereotype.
.
Citizen Ed Koch‘s loyalty lies with Likud politicians and the Bush Cabal. As the state of Israel has not been under existential threat of war since 1973, the 911 plot was exploited to place Palestinian groups on the terror watch list. This cover was used by Sharon to continue the spread of settlements on occupied Palestinian land during the Bush administration. Any act of resistance was seen as an act of terror against Israel. With part of the separation barrier in place inside the Green Line in the West Bank, life of the Palestinians has been severely interrupted. Citizen Ed Koch is a voice of oppression of a people from pre-WWII colonialism mindset, based on the OT and biblical promise of the Land of Canaan to the tribes of the Jews.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."In reality, State of Israel has never been under existential threat except from its own excessive ambitions and hubris.
Even in 1973 there was no existential threat. The 1973 so-called Yom Kippur war was a direct result of Israel’s intransigence with respect to the Sinai and the Golan Heights, which it was illegally colonizing, and whose natural resources it was illegally exploiting with the obvious goal of eventually illegally annexing both territories in direct violation of the UN Charter, UNSC 242, and a number of other instruments of international law to which Israel was a signatory. After six years of attempting to obtain the return of their sovereign territory through diplomatic means, and given the obvious reality that Israel had no intention of withdrawing, Egypt and Syria resorted to the use of arms with the limited goal of regaining their own territory. There was no plan to destroy Israel, nor did the Arab states believe for a moment that they would be allowed to do so.
The existential threat meme is nothing more than a device by which Israel justifies its aggression, its land theft, its cruelty, and its disdain for others’ rights. The only real existential threat to Israel is Israel itself.
Why is it that the people who question my patriotism are always the ones who seem to have loyalty to Israel before the United States?