Caroline Glick and Ed Koch on Obama’s Middle East speech
Glick sure doesn’t mince words.
And Ed Koch says he won’t be supporting Obama in 2012, but will instead cross party lines:
I believe this is the most dangerous and critical period that Israel has ever faced and regrettably it does not have the support of the President of the United States, which in past difficult situations it could count on.
It’s not strange that Koch is abandoning Obama. What’s strange is that he ever supported him in the first place:
I supported President Obama, believing he would be good on foreign policy, particularly with respect to the support of Israel. It turned out badly.
Let’s take a little trip back in time and take a look at the relevant parts of Koch’s endorsement of Obama in 2008:
One foreign policy issue that particularly concerned me in 2004 was the security of Israel. I thought in 2004 that issue was better left to President George W. Bush, and I believe I was right. President Bush understood the need to support the security of Israel and did so. I did not feel that way about Senator John Kerry.
That is not an issue in this election. Both parties and their candidates have made clear, before and during this election campaign their understanding of the need to support Israel and oppose acts of terrorism waged against it by Hamas and other Muslim supporters of terrorism.
So the issue for me is who will best protect and defend America.
I have concluded that the country is safer in the hands of Barack Obama, leader of the Democratic Party and protector of the philosophy of that party…
If the vice president were ever called on to lead the country, there is no question in my mind that the experience and demonstrated judgment of Joe Biden is superior to that of Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is a plucky, exciting candidate, but when her record is examined, she fails miserably with respect to her views on the domestic issues that are so important to the people of the U.S., and to me. Frankly, it would scare me if she were to succeed John McCain in the presidency.
Anyone paying a particle of attention prior to the election should have known it would “turn out badly.” Thinking Obama would support Israel was wishful thinking and self-delusion of a high order.
And I wonder what Koch thinks of Palin now. Which would scare him more, a second term for Obama or a Palin presidency? Maybe he’ll get a chance to make that choice when he votes in 2012.
Why would anyone be surprised at Obama’s pushing Israel under the bus driven by Muslim’s?
And he want’s to help the Muslim Brotherhood a boat load of money.
Lawmakers Resist Obama’s Call to Offer $2B in Loan Assistance to Egypt
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/21/lawmakers-resist-obamas-offer-2b-loan-assistance-egypt/
Obama, himself, noted that he was a blsnk slate on which people projected thier own aspirations. He was absolutely accurate in that description and 53% of the American electorate, including Ed Koch, saw what they wanted to see. For Obama to convince a long-term and astute politician like Koch evinces the sophistication of the con-man that Obama is.
It would be interesting for K to tell us exactly how he got conned.
Loved the Caroline Glick piece. I was looking forward to her reaction, and she didn’t disappont.
Unfortunately, the headline of the blog post you linked to which has the Koch interview with Newsmax is wrong. While Koch expresses deep disappointment with Obama’s new stance on Israel as expressed in the speech, at no point did I hear him say in the interview that he plans to cross party lines in 2012.
In fact, I heard him say toward the end of the interview that he WILL support Obama in 2012 because he doesn’t like Republican ideas about reforming Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. He did say, however, that if a Republican emerges who will not tinker around much with those entitlements AND who also strongly supports Israel, then he would consider once again crossing party lines and support the Republican as he did when he supported President Bush’s re-election in 2004.
I just don’t see how any Republican can win the nomination who isn’t committed to major entitlement reform, so I doubt Koch will be crossing party lines in 2012 as he did in 2004.
Frankly, I find this troubling. To me it implies Koch has a hierarchy of concerns, with Israel first, and then, if Israel isn’t a concern, America.
Or am I reading too much into this?
I would expect any loyal American to place America’s interests first, and then – and only then – to worry about the interests of any other nation. It’s just statements such as this that raise questions about where any given American Jew’s loyalties lay (particularly since Koch did not receive a firestorm of criticism from other American Jews). His statements invite the conclusion that if Israel’s interests conflict with ours, then can we expect to be sold out.
If this seems too harsh, consider how it looks to a Gentile. Imagine Rashid Al-Baghdadi saying that his particular concern is the security of Mecca and Medina, but if that’s not an issue, then his issue is who will best protect and defend America.
Disturbing in its implications, isn’t it?
If Koch believes that we can go forward without substantial changes to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, then he is delusional and utterly irrelevant to today’s economic realities.
Occam’s Beard,
However far apart from American interests they may be, Israel’s interests don’t involve the destruction or subjugation of America (despite what David Duke or Jeremiah Wright may say). Islamic interests do.
To be a Jew means to be a Palestinian nationalist (I use “Palestinian” here in its proper, non-revisionist sense). If you see that as constituting dual loyalty, so be it, but I still say you’re better off worrying about the Muslims in your midst rather than the Jews. Both Judaism and Islam have a political program, but Judaism’s program is local, involving only Jews, while Islam’s is global and involves you and me.
If you are a US citizen, but place the security of another nation at the top of your voting priorities, please move to that other country.
Ziontruth, this is not the issue. (I won’t address the David Duke/Jeremiah Wright reference is a red herring, as is that to the Muslim threat.)
The issue in those evincing dual loyalty is, at the margin, which one comes first? If you’re American, it’d better be America, my friend. It’s that simple.
This dual-loyalty charge is stupid. I’m surprised that people on this blog engage in it. If the American government supported the Islamists at the expense of Israel, I would certainly do my best to prevent that.
Imagine that you are Jew. What would you do?
Yesterday I was challenged on this blog because I explained why historically Jews don’t trust Christians. Some took offense.
Now some of you are telling me that I should throw the Jewish state to the winds if the American government (Obama) feels like doing so.
Any contradictions here?????
The Jewish Diaspora will end one day, to be gathered entirely in the Jewish ancestral land. This will be so even for American Jewry, which feels itself so secure right now. And these sentiments may well be the human instrument through which HaShem will make it happen.
As an Israeli Jew I appreciate America’s support and that of the non-Jewish American people, but not when it comes at a price. Even neutrality and apathy toward Israel are better than support that comes at a price. Israel and the loyalty of American Jews are the least of your concerns; the start of the downward slide has nothing to do with Israel, and everything to do with that fateful day in 1973 when Roe v. Wade was decided.
Ziontruth . . .
There has always been a Diaspora, even during the times of the Roman Republic. American Jews will never migrate en masse to Israel. Life is too wonderful here, and Israel is too small.
Are you referring to me or Ziontruth, Promethea? It is Ziontruth that brought it up.
And it’s not stupid at all. Jonathan Pollard is a case in point. He sold us out to help Israel, yes? Suppose his treachery put American lives at risk (which it may well have done, for all I know).
It’s easy to contrive scenarios where advancing one country’s interests harms the other’s.
Imagine that you are Jew. What would you do?
Imagine that you are not, and have a son in the military who gets killed because a Jew in the government decided to help Israel at the expense of America. How would you feel about that?
Further suppose that Rashid’s son, predictably enough named Mohammed, thinking that the American government supported Israel at the expense of the Arabs, decides to do his best to prevent that.
Bottom line: if you’re a citizen of this country, you owe first allegiance to it. Period.
Also, does no one dispute my reading of Koch? I was rather hoping I’d misunderstood him.
“There has always been a Diaspora,…”
No. There has been a Diaspora for most of Jewish history but not all. The Diaspora started after the Babylonian conquest of Judea (6th century BCE).
“American Jews will never migrate en masse to Israel. Life is too wonderful here,…”
How familiar that sounds.
“…and Israel is too small.”
There’s a chance Israel might get bigger. Whatever the world thinks about it.
It was very evident that Obama was a strong supporter of the Palestinian movement and alongside the Bill Ayres & Bernardine Dohrn connections, there was his ties to Rashid Khalidi, a Professor of Arab studies at U. of Chicago when Obama taught there.
Khalidi, a self-described “Palestinian-American” though 100% American-born — in New York, lived in Beirut for years and proudly declares he was “deeply involved in politics in Beirut.”
In Oct. of 2008, shortly proceding the election, the L.A. times suppressed a tape of a party in honor of Khalidi attended by some of the foremost anti-Jew anti-Israel racists and terrorists — and Barack Obama who gave a speech in praise of Khalidi and his work. This created one more controvery regarding Obama’s questionable associations, but both the clear relationship of Obama to this group, as well as the Times’ act of suppressing the tape, were fairly quickly shut down by the always reliable pro-Obama MSM.
(For more info on Rashidi’s work and views on Israel & Palestine simply look up Khalid Rashidi on Wikipedia or Google his name — there is a wealth of information. Frankly, I don’t care to repeat any more of this man’s opinions than necessary to identify him).
There was never a doubt where Obama’s sympathies lay even though during the campaign,
he paid lip service to Jewish fund-raisers as required, and, in particular to the powerful AIPAC (“Non-PAC self-identified as ‘America’s pro-Israel lobby’, working to strengthen relations between the United States and Israel. ) http://www.aipac.org/ – which meets this very weekend and where Obama will, of course, give another of his manipulative speeches.
A friend very active in AIPAC describes the meeting in Washington during the campaign as approached with some trepidation by members, but they came away satisfied that he was comitted to Israel and valued her as the key U.S. ally in the Middle East.
In other words, he lied then — much as he lies now, and will lie this weekend. I wonder how many of these powerful — and very importantly, WEALTHY or key-fundraisers with close access to the wealth of prominent Jews — will swallow the swill…again.
Shame on them for believing one time. I fear what might be the result if they believe and support this man again.
another oops! moment: 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence meant “preceding;” not proceding.
But you’re making out an argument for the converse. Surely you see that. Conditional loyalty is no loyalty at all, because it boils down to being loyal until one is not. Someone saying America comes first right after country X necessitates our calculating in each case where America’s interest lay vis a vis country X to know whether to rely on that person’s loyalty.
Again, consider the hypothetical Mohammed, a devout American-born Muslim, in the State Department. Would you trust him with critical secrets Israel had shared with us, or would you wonder whether his being a Muslim trumped his being an American? It’s not a ridiculous question, is it?
No, that’s a straw man. I’m speaking in the abstract; never mind Obama. At the margin, which country has first call on loyalty? Is it America > Israel, or the converse?
I have no problem with Israel. I’ve visited Israel, have friends there, and like and support Israel. Hell, I’d help Israel if I could do so — without harming America. That’s not the point. The point is reciprocity of loyalty between Americans, across the board. No caveats, no carve outs, no provisos.
Here’s a hypothetical for you. Suppose a group of Americans were captured by Muslim terrorists and told that they would be set free if they identified the Jews among them. I would consider anyone who took that deal to be a traitor. We’re Americans first and foremost, never mind religion or ethnicity, or any other consideration, and owe each other true allegiance. That’s my idea of loyalty. And I expect it to be reciprocated.
Csimon, I would give a lot to see the Khalidi tape, and to know why the LAT has suppressed it.
Actually, Khalidi could be the poster boy for what I was talking about above.
What’s the point of this theoretical discussion, Occam’s Beard? Have all the conundrums and dilemmas raised by reality been solved that you find it necessary to move to the greener pastures of hypothesis and conjecture?
It’s a fundamental question, ziontruth. Principles matter. In the last analysis, they’re all that matters.
Jonathan Pollard is hardly a typical Jewish American. Think of all the commie spies who sold American secrets to Russia. What were their religious/ethnic backgrounds.
As I said, the dual loyalty canard is stupid.
Occam . . .
Usually I like your posts, but you are really on your high horse today.
No, I’m not. I’ve just raised a question that some find awkward to address forthrightly.
“Principles matter.”
Principles are what got the U.S.A. into a lot of current messes.
The principle of the Will Of The People: so Iraq and Afghanistan get shariah law in their Constitutions.
The principle of Freedom Of Religion At All Costs: so a mosque gets built on Ground Zero.
The principle of Being Civilized Unlike The Other Side: so American soldiers in Afghanistans are demoralized by Rules of Engagement that make Taliban victory all but guaranteed.
Principles, principles, principles. Instead of flexible, ad-hoc solutions to maximize national survival, it’s been nothing but principles.
What you called “red herrings” in my original response to you are so only from this view that espouses principles above all. From my view of national survivalism, it is not a red herring to point out that the theoretical question of Jewish dual loyalty ought to take a back seat to the practical issue of Islamic sedition.
But what the heck… whatever floats your boat.
Occam . . .
It’s not an awkward question. It’s an insulting question. Let me put it to you this way. Would you personally do anything your government required of you? If it were a genocidal government? Have you no limits to your willingness to serve the state?
We could discuss this forever, throwing nutty examples back and forth. For me, no I would not betray American military secrets to Israel. I hope that satisfies you.
I assume you would not massacre innocent American babies because a vicious government told you to do so.
OK?
You mean such as the Rosenbergs, Morton Sobell, David Greenglass, Harry Gold, Nathan Silvermaster, Samuel Dickstein, Theodore Hall (nee Hertzberg), spies such as those?
Bad example.
Promethea,
“It’s an insulting question.”
I don’t see it that way. It’s just, I marvel at this kind of misguided allocation of resources (rhetorical or otherwise). Occam’s Beard is not being his usual smart self here.
Haven’t we already discussed the connection between socialism and Jews? Are you saying that Jews tend to be traitors, or that many communists are Jews?
Are any non-Jews communists? Should we only look at the Jewish communists and not at the other communists?
Should we prosecute or accuse Jews because they might be communists and forget all the other people who might be communists?
Are Jew more prone to being traitors than other Americans?
We should probably narrow down this topic to one or two points. Otherwise, I think you are being bullheaded about the dual loyalty and traitor issues.
So … principles don’t matter?
I stand by my assertion. Principles do matter. You’re conflating the importance of principles with their content.
So if Obama decides to hang Israel out to dry to maximize our national survival, that would be OK by you? You know, going with that flexible, ad hoc approach, throwing principles over the side. We cut Israel loose to fend for herself, and the Arabs cut the price of oil. Can’t get much more flexible and ad hoc than that, eh? Cheap energy, economy booms – this flexibility thing works!
“Expediency” is, I believe, the word you’re looking for.
The problem is that you implicitly assume that Israel will be the beneficiary of any such expediency, rather than the victim of it. Unfortunately, expediency cuts two ways.
For an Israeli that makes perfect sense. But I’m not an Israeli. I’m an American. And the question of Jewish dual loyalty is not theoretical at all, as Jonathan Pollard shows us. But even excluding such a dramatic example, consider voters (and campaign contributors) with divided loyalties. Can you see the potential for a conflict of interest?
Turn it around. Do you have qualms about Israeli Muslims voting in Israeli elections, or serving in sensitive positions in the Israeli government? I bet you do, because you’re not sure where their loyalties lay.
I say again: consider a devout Muslim in a sensitive position in the US government. Would you entrust him with Israeli secrets? Yes or no? Why, or why not?
Again, that’s a straw man. I didn’t say anything of the kind. As I said above, principles matter (although I’ve been informed otherwise). Mine don’t run to, inter alia, serving genocidal governments, because I don’t subscribe to the flexible, ad hoc approach, although God knows it worked out well for George Soros.
Good. But that’s a bit strong, and therefore an easy call. I won’t indulge in another hypothetical, but it’s not difficult to imagine a much tougher call, one involving not a sin of commission but rather omission, where the outcome might or might not be so bad, and where therefore it would be easier to rationalize … doing the wrong thing.
“So if Obama decides to hang Israel out to dry to maximize our national survival, that would be OK by you?”
Yes. I don’t make the assumption that Israel can’t survive with America’s help. If anything, America has held Israel back from doing a lot of things Israel should have done long ago.
“The problem is that you implicitly assume that Israel will be the beneficiary of any such expediency, rather than the victim of it.”
I make no such assumption. I’m just following the ancient Jewish rule of not trusting any other nation for our security. Our bed must be our own to make. And if we’re destined to go down (God forbid), then at least this time we’re taking our enemies down with us.
“For an Israeli that makes perfect sense. But I’m not an Israeli. I’m an American.”
No, it makes sense from an American point of view as well. I’m not condoning foreign espionage, but even the worst such act by a Jew doesn’t hold a candle next to Islamic sedition. I repeat: There is no Jewish doctrine of subjugating other countries; there is such an Islamic doctrine.
“…consider voters (and campaign contributors) with divided loyalties.”
Who can you be sure doesn’t have divided loyalties? That’s why I prefer concentrating on those who I’m sure do have divided loyalties.
“I say again: consider a devout Muslim in a sensitive position in the US government. Would you entrust him with Israeli secrets? Yes or no? Why, or why not?”
No, but not because there may be a chance of dual loyalty, but because there’s almost a certainty of it. I have a very good basis for my systematic prejudice against Muslims; I argue that there’s no such basis with regard to Jews, Catholics (remember the fear that Kennedy would take his orders from the Vatican?) and others.
Sorry, but another straw man, in that I never said anything of the kind. Furthermore, consider the loaded words in the quote: “any,” “only,” “all.”
We did previously discuss the relationship between Jews and socialism, and so there’s no need to replow that furrow, but I think in a defense of American Jews’ loyalty I’d draw a discreet veil over the ethnicity of communist spies.
In any case, my original point did not bear on the straight-up treason issue, but rather on that of potentially conflicting loyalties. I read Koch’s statement as his making Israel his first consideration, and America his second. Does anyone here not subscribe to that reading? I can’t see another interpretation of his comments, so if you can, please help me out.
To shift the conversation to a less emotionally fraught context, I see Koch’s statement as being equivalent to saying, “I love my wife, and I’ll always be right by her side, unless my mistress really needs me.” How am I wrong?
“I see Koch’s statement as being equivalent to saying, ‘I love my wife, and I’ll always be right by her side, unless my mistress really needs me.’ How am I wrong?”
You will find, throughout history, Diaspora Jews in a position of comfort, even high office, singing of their wish to return to the Land of Israel, although in most cases it was desolate at the time. For example, Rabbi Yehudah Ha-Levi, a courtier during the Golden Age of Islamic Spain (a brief period of tolerance many people mistakenly think characterizes all of Jewish existence in the Islamic world), writes in song, “My heart is in the east, but I am at the end of the west.”
It is basic Judaism to believe that the Jews’ stay in the Diaspora, be it even for over two millennia, is just a temporary sojourn. That’s how Judaism works. I know very well that many Jew-haters have used this fact as the basis for accusing Jews of sedition, while today just quoting the Islamic doctrine of instituting shariah law over the entire world is decried as “racism.”
I cannot change Judaism for you. If you are disturbed by the love that Jews give to the Land of Israel (and now the state thereupon) above all other lands, rest assured the Diaspora is going to end one way or another. You’re being awfully stupid in raising a concern which, while not completely imaginary, pales into insignificance next to the certainty of Islamic colonialism. That is all I can offer.
Occam’s Beard — Obviously this is not the tape (that was buried by the L.A. Times as they endorsed Obama) but this is a report on it and the relationship betw. Obama and Khalidi and what the actual article that was written in the Times said (Of course, this appeared on FOX, report by John Gibson)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXCqVmRgPjs&feature=related
I agree.
Agree again. It’s true for every country, in fact. No permanent friends, no permanent enemies, only permanent interests.
Have to disagree here. Islamic sedition has been merely an irritant so far in the US; it’s main threat is in prospect. On the other hand, espionage by Jews has already affected the US, and world history, and cost untold American lives. (As in, for example, its effect on the Korean War — sans A-bomb, would Stalin have given the North Koreans and later the Chinese a free hand? Problematic, at best.) So this argument doesn’t make.
Me too. Hence my interest in parsing Koch’s statement.
Great. We’re agreed that dual loyalty is troubling? That’s where I came in.
OK. So you don’t read Koch’s statement as reflecting dual loyalty? How do you read it, then?
wishful thinking and self-delusion of a high order. Quite a good description of Democratic policies.
I’m not trying to change Judaism; I’m trying to understand it, and its impact on my country. I have no problem with Jews loving Israel. I have a major problem with Jews who love Israel above America, and yet hold themselves out as Americans.
Btw, in my analogy, “wife” referred to America — an entity to which Koch, as an American citizen, legally owes allegiance above all others. The phrase in the marriage ceremony “forsaking all others” leaps to mind.
If Koch loves Israel above all other lands, then he’s not much of an American, is he? In that instance he’s at best effectively an Israeli economic refugee in America (no different from, say, a Haitian one).
Again, turn it around. If someone were nominally an Israeli citizen, but loved America above all other lands, how would you regard him?
Occam and Promethea, I have a question you two may be able to help me with as it concerns the dual loyalty charge.
I served (read volunteered during wartime) in the US Army from 1971-74. In 1978 I immigrated to Israel and worked in their National Survey, for which I obtained an Israeli security clearance. I returned to the US in 1980. In 1981 I was hired by a sh*thole called the Defense Mapping Agency in DC and was given a secret clearance. I 1987 it was suspended because of dual loyalties to Israel. This was after Pollard. The letter denouncing me as a security risk was sufficiently board that the ADL felt necessary to get involved. Even so I never saw my clearance again. I quit the place of course and returned to Israel for 2 years.
So tell me which country is mine, the US or Israel?
“Islamic sedition has been merely an irritant so far in the US; it’s main threat is in prospect.”
Be that as it may, it’s Islamic in its essence. I’m going to explain what I mean:
“On the other hand, espionage by Jews has already affected the US, and world history, and cost untold American lives.”
So far you have found examples of spies who happened to be Jews. You haven’t found a Jewish agenda. My prejudice toward Muslims stems from my recognition of the Islamic agenda.
“Hence my interest in parsing Koch’s statement.”
Which means you’re not sure. I, in contrast, don’t have to parse anything with regard to the Muslims.
“We’re agreed that dual loyalty is troubling?”
Yes. But I don’t want people of my nation (Jews) to be on the receiving end of such accusations. As you said, the issue is expediency.
You’ll probably say something like, “Then let them allay such accusations by showing loyalty to America above all.” But who says there must be a choice? Here again I’m going to explain after the quote:
“So you don’t read Koch’s statement as reflecting dual loyalty? How do you read it, then?”
In all probability, Koch doesn’t think there’s any contradiction. Most pro-Israel and certainly all right-wing Jews think that America’s and Israel’s interests coincide, and that an anti-Israel president is also an anti-American one (this I truly believe concerning the Obamarxist).
No doubt you’ll consider a lot of my reply to be lame. I feel my reply is at certain places strained, myself; not up to my usual standard. This is because the American nation is one of the few non-Jewish nations I really love (toward most of them I’m neutral–that’s only normal), and to see these constant reminders of the price Israel and Jews (including American Jews) are called to pay for this special relationship is one of the few things that shake me (me, a veteran reader of the foulest left-wing anti-Zionist blogs).
I will charitably assume you, Occam’s Beard, represent no one but Occam’s Beard. I fervently hope this is so; for, what with anti-Zionism already running rampant (blaming U.S. support of Israel for 9/11 and so on), adding suspicions of inherent Jewish sedition will only serve to make the divorce between America and the wakeful Jews (those who have not exchanged the basic Zionism of their religion for Marxist lies–all right-wingers, most Orthodox believers, and saner left-wingers like Koch and Dershowitz) an inevitability.
“I have a major problem with Jews who love Israel above America, and yet hold themselves out as Americans.”
You mean, if Koch were to renounce his American citizenship, you’d have no problem with his overriding love of Israel? Is this some kind of bind you wish to put Jews in?
“If Koch loves Israel above all other lands, then he’s not much of an American, is he?”
I don’t know. As I said, being a Jew means being tied to Palestine regardless of birthplace. On the other hand, Jewish law is very clear that, during the stay in the Diaspora, Jews are not to go against their host countries in any way. Again the contrast with Islam is instructive.
“If someone were nominally an Israeli citizen, but loved America above all other lands, how would you regard him?”
Wouldn’t disturb me that much. I’m far more distressed by Israeli citizens who, despite professing their patriotism, say parts of the Land of Israel belong to the Arabs. A lot of non-Jewish Americans are far more agreeable to me than some Israeli Jewish citizens. Because of that.
Occam . . .
I think you and I probably both agree that traitors should be executed. Pollard, Ames, Hansen, and the New York Times individuals who released secret information to the public during the Iraq War should all have been shot. Or maybe hung. I have no patience for traitors whatsoever.
I don’t think you should confuse communist traitors of Jewish origin like the Rosenbergs with the Jewish religion. I don’t confuse Joe Kennedy’s traitorous behavior when he was ambassador to England with Catholicism. Maybe Hansen was a Lutheran. I don’t think it’s relevant. Some of my family worked on the bomb and other weapons, so you should thank us and not conflate us with traitors.
Your arguments are kind of convoluted, and I have trouble seeing why you call my arguments “straw men.” Why not take a minute and try to see my point of view.
Your analogy between Jewish loyalty and Muslim loyalty is incorrect. The Jewish religion is nothing like the Muslim religion. Jews are supposed to follow the laws of the lands they live in. Islam calls for the end of America as we know it. Devout Muslims want to establish a global caliphate and establish sharia (slavery). Whether all Muslims or most Muslims in America believe this is another question. We can talk about that some other time.
On the other hand, you shouldn’t so lightly dismiss Jewish concerns for survival. Not personal concerns as individuals, but group concerns as a people.
Earlier, in some other comment, I tried to give the analogy of the Jewish people with the Navajo people. That’s the point of view I hope you’ll try to see. All the arguments in the world will not get me to agree to see the destruction of the Jewish people.
I’ll boil it down to two words: “Never Again.”
If those two words bother you, that’s your problem, not my problem.
Ziontruth . . .
Well stated. Lots of good information.
Bob from Virginia . . .
I’m sorry that happened to you. I can see why the U.S. government might be fearful. I don’t think there are easy solutions to this problem.
On the other hand, a family member at this very minute is creating weapons that the U.S. military will use. Tens of thousands of American lives will be saved.
Life is never simple. I don’t like Occam asking me to prove my loyalty. Maybe I can prove it better than he can. I don’t plan to give more details about who I am, just in case the jihadists are looking for people to kill.
“I don’t think you should confuse communist traitors of Jewish origin like the Rosenbergs with the Jewish religion. I don’t confuse Joe Kennedy’s traitorous behavior when he was ambassador to England with Catholicism.”
Thanks, Promethea. That’s the point I didn’t manage to convey very well.
You can bring forth a long list of Jewish Marxists (Trotski, Rosa Luxemburg, to name two prominent ones), but it all falls flat because Marxism isn’t Jewish. Suicide-murder terrorism, on the other hand, is canonically and authentically a part of Islam.
There is a danger of Jews with dual loyalty to the same extent as that of Irish Catholic with dual loyalty. That is, there is always the chance of a spy or traitor who happens to be a Jew, or an Irish Catholic. Islam and Marxism, on the other hand, are inherently seditious; when someone declares to be numbered among the Muslims or the Marxists, sedition on his part would not be a coincidence but a consequence.
I’m glad this conversation has gotten back to Koch’s original statement, because I think there’s another way to look at it that may be useful.
My understanding of Koch’s position is NOT that he puts Israeli interests ahead of American interests. Rather, he assumes that the candidates for President will, of course, put America’s interests first. As such, that’s a non-issue for him, and he can therefore look to lesser issues, such as America’s treatment of Israel.
In other words, given a choice between a patriotic American President who’s pro-Israel and a patriotic American President who’s anti-Israel, he’ll choose the former.
I don’t see anything wrong with that, Occam, and I suspect you wouldn’t either.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
A distinction without a difference.
I was being polite, and making room for the possibility of error. Actually, I am pretty sure.
Of course not. But that’s not the point. The point is whether such accusations have a basis in fact.
They do, in the main. But what happens if and when they don’t? At some point, everyone’s interests diverge.
Hey, who else would would have me? /g
I certainly do not subscribe to anything of the kind.
It’s the kind of bind I wish to put all Americans in, namely, loyalty to America first, among all nations. I want to know that my fellow citizens reciprocate my commitment. But if his first commitment is to Israel, what’s he doing here? The only apparent reasons are inertia and economic opportunity. Not exactly Sands of Iwo Jima now, is it?
I don’t. But our original issue directly involved religion/ethnicity. Were Joe Kennedy’s views on England colored by his perceived connection to Ireland? I suspect that they were. Would the same be true of all Irishmen? Doubtless not. But would it be true more Irishmen than those of other ethnicities? Doubtless it would. Would I be concerned if Kennedy had said that primary issue was home rule for Ireland, but if that that were not an issue, then who would best protect and defend America? You bet.
Agreed.
I said that because statements were implicitly attributed to me, and then torn down, when I never made the original statement. For example, I never said that Israel should be thrown to the winds if the American government felt like doing so, or that I would do anything my government required of me.
I don’t, but consider the proposition independent of the specifics, viz., nominal citizens of country A in fact hold country B in higher regard and affection, and at the margin would act in the interests of country B over those of country A. If you’re an unconflicted citizen of country A, that doesn’t sound so good, does it?
And yet that’s how I read Koch’s statement.
The relationship of American Jews to Israel is complicated, and is by no means monolithic. (As the tired old joke goes, with two Jews you get at least three different opinions.) This is because Judaism is a great deal more than a religion; it’s a people, a national and cultural heritage, a code of ethics, and a great deal more.
(As Koch once wrote in a different context — paraphrased, because I’m having trouble finding the exact quote — a man is a Jew first by birth and then by religion. If he ceases to practice the Jewish religion, he remains a Jew by birth. If he doubts this, he should ask his neighbors, who will remind him.)
A great many American Jews take a great deal of comfort in knowing that they do not need to choose between America and Israel — just as a man can be Italian on his father’s side and Swedish on his mother’s side with no contradiction. If Israel and America ever became enemies, a lot of people — in Israel as well as America, I might add — would have some very difficult choices to make. But it’s not necessary to make those choices today, and many American Jews resent the suggestion that they should.
– – – –
American Jews with a sense of history also know that, should America ever go the way of Europe, they now have a second home that will take them in without question. (America has never had an expulsion of Jews, nor a Jewish ghetto, nor a pogrom; no major European nation can say the same. But there have been ominous signs, particularly in this Administration, that perhaps the winds are changing.)
Here’s another analogy: America has a great many Second Amendment enthusiasts, who will happily explain that they defend the right to bear arms as a last protection against tyranny, just as the Founding Fathers intended. Many of these people served their country loyally and with great distinction.
Do you see a contradiction in a man who loves his country and would die to protect it, but nonetheless keeps his powder dry in case the very worst should happen? Neither do I. I likewise don’t see a contradiction in a man who loves America deeply, but is glad to support Israel, just in case his neighbors, not he, ever decide that he’s a Jew first and an American second. (And again, don’t say it couldn’t happen here. That’s what the highly-decorated German Jewish veterans of WWI thought.)
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
If that’s what he meant, I’m with him 100%. Perhaps Koch just made his point inartfully. The phrasing seemed to me to suggest a logical hierarchy, a procession from most significant to least significant, a philosophical little-endian approach. If he didn’t mean it that way (i.e., issues in order of decreasing importance) then my whole point, and I would say, a la Emily Litella, “never mind.”
I’m a little dubious about this interpretation, frankly, but I’m willing to accept that that might be what he meant.
“A distinction without a difference.”
You can’t be serious. “Spy who happens to be a Jew” –> “Jewish agenda”?!
I have low tolerance for “voices of reason”–people who claim to be just on an honest intellectual pursuit of truth while not making clear what their true goals are. I’m just willing to bear a “voice of reason” enough as long as he keeps that semblance. Once a “voice of reason” makes such a leap of logic as this, I call the whole charade off.
Unconventional, politically incorrect opinion doesn’t faze me–after all, I both harbor and exhibit it every day on various forums. But I wish it to be presented clearly. This vagueness in the guise of honest skeptical inquiry is something I can’t stand. If you’d simply said, “I think all Jews have divided loyalty to the United States of America,” forthright, I wouldn’t be as P.O.’ed as I am now. To know straight away whether friend or foe is what I want, not this slipperiness cloaking itself as intellectualism.
Thread done as far I’m concerned.
OB: You may be able to rest easy.
During the interview with Newsmax embedded in the link provided by neo-neocon, Koch referred to a poll that indicated only 45% of Democrats support Israel while 70% of Republicans do. To me, the logical conclusion to draw from that is that American policy toward Israel will be more predicable, favorable and supportive under a Republican president. Just keep that in the back of your mind while we get to the next point.
And that is, we probably both agree that all the uncertainty of the “Arab spring” that is happening in Israel’s neighborhood is making Israel even less safe and less secure today than it was when he made the comments you are disturbed by. And yet, Koch says he STILL plans to support Obama for re-election because he doesn’t like how the Republicans want to reform Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
If his concerns were about Israel’s security first and foremost, wouldn’t he want to support the Republicans who are far more supportive of Israel than Democrats? It looks to me that for him American liberalism trumps whatever loyalty he might have toward Israel.
Frankly, I find his devotion to liberalism with our $14.3 trillion of debt and $1.5 trillion annual deficits far more disturbing.
Now heres somebody who doesnt mince words. A ’70s rocker thinks Obama has “no fucking idea” about Mideast realities, the UN is a pathetic paper tiger, says Gadhafi and Hugo Chvez are garbage, and says you have to kill murderers.
Gene Simmons for President. (No not really, but it suddenly makes me want to buy a Kiss album.)
On a more serious note. I think the phrase “Obama threw Israel under the bus,” cannot be said enough. Its the truth, and it should be said repeatedly. I honestly hope the Jewish community opens up their eyes and sees the kind of mentality thats on the left.
I myself am a Cuban American, whose family came to this country fleeing Castro’s Communism. I do not always agree with everything on “the right,” but I could never do a “Sullivan” and move left. For whatever faults the “right” may have, and whatever disagreements I may have with some on the “right” on this or that issue, they are at least in touch with reality. God save us from the lunacy (or the willful malice) of the left!
Always glad to see Caroline Glick’s work valued. She is a powerhouse. A force of nature. As for Koch, it baffles me as to how he or anyone else for that matter could not see that Obama would be a dangerous person in the White House. His background was clear (enough…would that more of his records could be release, but we had plenty to go on). His point of view was clear. Any words he said that seduced people like Koch were transparent as just that: words. There were too many fools who were fooled in 2008. And I regret to say there will be many in 2012. As for Palin, she will never win, nor will any strong conservative. We have a huge challenge: Conservatives don’t want their values watered down. Independents and folks more in the middle/moderates don’t want policies that are more to the right than they are comfortable with. And I don’t think either group is large enough to carry the election. We need both camps. And the Dems know it and will exploit this challenge to the max. I don’t see our path to victory, but victory it must be.
Glick’s article was excellent.
Given various factors such as cultural similarities and political systems, and common enemies, plus a history of cooperation, it would be strange to find Israel and America on opposite sides of an issue of importance to their security. Not impossible, but strange. If nothing else, Israel acts as a redan (redoubt?) amongst many of our potential enemies.
I don’t include in this various overly-detailed and dishonest uses of double standards where US lefties presume to tell Israel what their zoning standards should be or that only suicide proves their willingness to have peace.
Wikileaks was supposed to humiliate US conservatives and especially Bush, but the docs dumped seem to have been insufficiently vetted. Among other things, we discover that the Gulf states are terrified of Iran and only make noise about Israel to quiet their teeming masses. But Obama is ignorant of this, as of much else. Or perhaps he sympathizes with the teeming masses.
And another Rube self identifies..
I supported President Obama, believing he would be good on foreign policy, particularly with respect to the support of Israel. It turned out badly.
Mayor Koch, I have two words for you: Samantha Powers. And you’re surprised it turned out badly? I’m suprised you’re suprised.
It should be a terrible thing to be such a slave to fashionable thought that you’ll cut your own throat to adhere to it. But for liberals, it seems to abandon fashionable thought and the in crowd acceptance is the more terrible thing to do.
We humans can’t say never again about any atrocity. Sooner or later people are going to lose all sense of reason and do a repeat.
IMO Occam makes an important point. If you are an American citizen your first loyalty (to a nation state) should be to the (real) security interests, the civil integrity, and economic health of the USA. If your first loyalty is to the security and wellbeing of a nation/society other than the USA, you are living in the wrong place.
However, this question of loyalty to a nation state is, IMO, not straightforward. I have a longstanding, deep distrust of the people who are in control of the federal government. What they tell us is in the best interests of our economy or our security has not matched up to my POV on occasions too numerous to list. I am loyal to my own instincts before all else.
America is not the people who are elected officials serving in the government. America is a set of ideas and principals, which were arrived at by the Founders. It is to those ideas and principals that we owe our allegiance and not to any particular group of people who might be serving. We humans are all quite subject to popular delusions and fashionable ideas. The left is, in general, still fascinated by the ideas of Marxism and equality of outcome being possible. Also by the delusion that if they abandon Israel peace will break out between the U.S. and the world of Islam.
As for Israel and America. I see it as the relationship between two families that have much in common and even some relatives by marriage. Israel is a family that lives in a tough neighborhood surrounded by a thugs that not only hate them, but hate us as well. We should do all we can to support our friend Israel because they are actually a proxy for us and freedom loving peoples everywhere. Some believe that if Israel ceases to exist, the trouble with Islam will go away. Most of us on the right disagree. Just because we don’t live in the immediate neighborhood of the thugs does not mean that we aren’t next if Israel disappears.
America and Israel can disagree but neither of us should take our eyes off the main threat. Too many lefties have done just that.
I’m not Jewish, and my primary loyalty is to the United States.
That said, I regard Israel not only as an important ally but a vital stronghold of Western Civilization in the Middle East. If the U.S. government ever turns against Israel, I will have a serious problem with that.
Personally, I loathe the two-passporters among us. An acquaintance told me that by virtue of holding French-EU/American citizenships, he could run for office anywhere from A for Atlanta to Z for Zagreb. Nice guy, mind you, but…. Stalin coined a very useful phrase for such birds, which if you scrape off the original anti-semetic intentions, is really quite concise and apt: “Rootless cosmopolitans”. No, these folk nothing but bigamists.
But as Conservatives we should distinguish this from a reverential memory of where we came from, who our people were, what they considered worthy and honorable. Apart for those brief and cruel times, when we had to ask our German and Japanese countrymen to turn their backs on their old homelands, America has always respected this.
But for the rest of us, it’s OK to fly the Italian flag, the Irish flag, the Israeli flag, just fly ours higher. Everybody seems to get that. I hope that includes the Conco de Mayos and the Allah Uber Alles groups, but frankly I have my doubts.
So, there’s nothing suspicious in Koch’s sentiments, but like many good Americans he is being a naive fool about the president we saddled ourselves with. And if I were the Israeli General Staff (is there one?) I’d be planning the 6-Minute War.
JJ you brought up a good point that is to often overlooked. The US is the first ideologically based nation in history. The only other was late Soviet Union. Too many Americans seem to think that the main purpose of the US is to provide expanded shopping opportunities.
As ideological state the US is not tied to the petty self-interests of other states, but to its own political religion of democracy. To betray a democracy in favor of a dictatorship undermines the internal morality of the state, the reason for the existence of the US. All this is a fancy way of saying the US cannot betray Israel without at the same time betraying its own reason to exist.
BTW Comrade Obama has been trying to undermine the US political religion from day one. Just look at Honduras. George F. Kennan predicted that the Soviet Union would fall due to the internal contradictions of its ideology. I predict likewise for the US. Either we will get rid of the Marxists or they will set up a dictatorship of the bureaucrat (a benign tyranny) like they have in Europe.