Israeli Consul-General in New York Ido Aharoni speaks at late former Mayor Ed Koch's funeral at Temple Emanu-El • Proudly Jewish, Koch was an outspoken supporter of Israel.

Ed Koch’s Headstone, Words From Daniel Pearl

Ed Koch thought about his final resting place, famously worrying that his body might end up somewhere besides Manhattan. He also weighed with great care the inscription on his headstone, which was placed at Manhattan’s Trinity Church Cemetery in 2009 (the only place in Manhattan with gravesites available).

The grave marker is inscribed with words spoken by Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl before he was killed by militants in Pakistan: “My father is Jewish, my mother is Jewish, I am Jewish.”

The former three-term mayor of New York, who died Friday, explained the selection in a 2012 interview with the Journal. “Well, that’s me, too,” he said of Mr. Pearl’s last words.

“I think that statement is as important as the most holy of all statements in Jewish ritual,” Koch said. “I think that every Saturday, we ought to say, ‘My father’s a Jew, my mother was a Jew, and I’m a Jew,’ with great pride.”
The headstone also includes the most familiar Jewish prayer, in English and Hebrew, known as the Shma: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.” And this epitaph:

He was fiercely proud of his Jewish faith. He fiercely defended the City of New York, and he fiercely loved its people. Above all, he loved his country, the United States of America, in whose armed forces he served in World War II.

Koch, who described himself as a secular Jew, used his office in City Hall as a bully pulpit to advocate for foreign policies — particularly those supportive of Israel — and continued to do so for decades after he left public office.
In 2011, he helped a Republican congressman get elected in New York as rebuke to the Democratic Party’s stance on Israel. He described anti-Semitism around the world as a serious concern for him.
“There’s so many people who are anti-Semitic today,” he said in the interview. “There are Jews who are uncomfortable announcing that they are Jew… I’m proud of the word ‘Jew.’ And that I am a Jew. And that’s why think we should say it every Saturday.”

Koch: President Should Say Attack on Israel Is Attack on US

I met with President Obama on Sept. 21, 2011, after I supported Bob Turner, a Republican who won the congressional seat vacated by Anthony Weiner.
That seat had been held by a Democrat for nearly a hundred years in prior elections and was the congressional district with the largest Jewish population in the country.
I urged the residents of the district to vote for Turner and thereby send a message to the president that he was taking the Jewish community for granted. Turner, a Roman Catholic and a German-American, won against a Democratic Jewish candidate by a margin of 8 percent.
When I met with the president, I expressed the anxieties of the Jewish community with respect to his administration’s treatment of Israel and its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and most importantly, with respect to the security needs of that small state surrounded by Arab countries at war with it.
The president got the message and by deed and language undertook to remedy the situation, and he did. He prevented the Palestinian Authority from gaining entry to the United Nations as a state, and he has championed Israel in his speeches at the U.N.
The intelligence and military cooperation between the Israeli Defense Forces (I.D.F.) and U.S. armed forces has never been better. There are, in fact, large-scale military exercises being held right now in Israel with U.S. military forces.
During the last year, I have urged the president to make clear to Iran that were it to attack Israel, it would be deemed an attack upon the U.S. In the debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney in Florida this week, when the moderator, Bob Schieffer, asked, “Would either of you - and you’ll have two minutes, and President Obama, you have the first go at this one - would either of you be willing to declare that an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States which, of course, is the same promise that we give to our close allies like Japan.
“And if you made such a declaration, would not that deter Iran? It’s certainly deterred the Soviet Union for a long time when we made that - we made - we made that promise to our allies. Mr. President?”
The responses of the two candidates were virtually the same. Obama said, “And if Israel is attacked, America will stand with Israel.” Romney said, “When I’m president of the United States, we will stand with Israel. And if Israel is attacked, we have their back, not just diplomatically, not just culturally, but militarily.”
Following is a larger extract of their statements:

OBAMA: “First of all, Israel is a true friend. It is our greatest ally in the region. And if Israel is attacked, America will stand with Israel. I’ve made that clear throughout my presidency. And . . .
SCHIEFFER: So you’re saying we’ve already made that declaration?
OBAMA: I will stand with Israel if they are attacked. And this is the reason why, working with Israel, we have created the strongest military and intelligence cooperation between our two countries in history.
In fact, this week we’ll be carrying out the largest military exercise with Israel in history, this very week. But to the issue of Iran, as long as I’m president of the United States Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. I made that clear when I came into office.
OBAMA: We then organized the strongest coalition and the strongest sanctions against Iran in history, and it is crippling their economy. Their currency has dropped 80 percent. Their oil production has plunged to the lowest level since they were fighting a war with Iraq 20 years ago. So their economy is in a shambles.
And the reason we did this is because a nuclear Iran is a threat to our national security, and it is a threat to Israel’s national security. We cannot afford to have a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world.
Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. And for them to be able to provide nuclear technology to non-state actors, that’s unacceptable. And they have said that they want to see Israel wiped off the map.
So the work that we’ve done with respect to sanctions now offers Iran a choice. They can take the diplomatic route and end their nuclear program or they will have to face a united world and a United States president, me, who said we’re not going to take any options off the table.
The disagreement I have with Governor Romney is that, during the course of this campaign, he’s often talked as if we should take premature military action. I think that would be a mistake, because when I’ve sent young men and women into harm’s way, I always understand that that is the last resort, not the first resort.
SCHIEFFER: Two minutes.
ROMNEY: Well, first of all, I want to underscore the same point the president made which is that if I’m president of the United States, when I’m president of the United States, we will stand with Israel.
And if Israel is attacked, we have their back, not just diplomatically, not just culturally, but militarily. That’s number one.
Number two, with regards to Iran and the threat of Iran, there’s no question but that a nuclear Iran, a nuclear-capable Iran is unacceptable to America. It presents a threat not only to our friends but ultimately a threat to us to have Iran have nuclear material, nuclear weapons that could be used against us or used to be threatening to us.
ROMNEY: It is also essential for us to understand what our mission is in Iran, and that is to dissuade Iran from having a nuclear weapon through peaceful and diplomatic means. And crippling sanctions are something I called for five years ago, when I was in Israel, speaking at the Herzliya Conference.
I laid out seven steps, crippling sanctions were number one. And they do work. You’re seeing it right now in the economy. It’s absolutely the right thing to do, to have crippling sanctions. I would have put them in place earlier. But it’s good that we have them.
Number two, something I would add today is I would tighten those sanctions. I would say that ships that carry Iranian oil, can’t come into our ports. I imagine the E.U. would agree with us as well. Not only ships couldn’t, but I’d say companies that are moving their oil can’t, people who are trading in their oil can’t. I would tighten those sanctions further. Secondly, I’d take on diplomatic isolation efforts.
I’d make sure that Ahmadinejad is indicted under the Genocide Convention. His words amount to genocide incitation. I would indict him for it. I would also make sure that their diplomats are treated like the pariah they are around the world. The same way we treated the apartheid diplomats of South Africa.
We need to increase pressure time, and time again on Iran because anything other than a solution to this, which says - which stops this - this nuclear folly of theirs, is unacceptable to America. And of course, a military action is the last resort. It is something one would only consider if all of the other avenues had been tried to their full extent.”

I think it would be very helpful if the president issues a public statement that the U.S. will respond militarily against Iran, if that country launches an attack upon Israel.
The formal publication of the statement would deter Iran from launching an attack. I have made clear in prior commentaries that on all domestic issues, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, healthcare, abortion, food stamps, tax reform, including taxing the top 2 percent of taxpayers more, I support the positions of President Obama and the Democratic Party, and I believe the Republican positions and those of Mitt Romney to be anathema and harmful to the social fabric and economy of the U.S.
Whatever I can do to help re-elect President Obama and provide him with a majority in both houses of Congress so as to end the gridlock in Washington, D.C., I will do. I urge all other voters to do the same.
Edward Koch was the 105th mayor of New York City for three terms, from 1978 to 1989. He previously served for nine years as a congressman.
Source: NEWSMAX ^[1]

President Obama’s Hostility To Israel Continues by Ed Koch

Not since 1973 and the Yom Kippur War when Egypt and Syria – with logistical help from other Arab countries — joined forces in an attempt to crush Israel has the survival of Israel been in question. Today, however, Israel is in danger.

In 70 AD, the Jewish nation was sold into slavery by the Romans and condemned to wander in the Diaspora until David Ben-Gurion, its George Washington and founding Father, called it back into existence. A United Nations vote in 1947 called for the creation of two states in the historic mandate of Palestine, one Jewish and the other Palestinian.

The Jews accepted the vote; the Arabs did not. The Palestinians with the aid of the surrounding Arab states of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, declared war on the new state of Israel.

Thanks to their courage and determination, five hundred thousand Jews in Israel were somehow victorious against 100 million Arabs. Some called it a miracle. The Israelis summed it up in the expression “Ein Breira (no other choice)”. Since 1948, every Arab state, except for Egypt and Jordan, continued in a state of war against Israel. In the two states that entered into a peace treaty with Israel, it has been a cold peace with the citizens of both countries continuing to boycott Israel, not visiting it and those who broke the visiting boycott being subject to condemnation and loss of professional licenses. Now 63 years later, 500,000 Jews have become almost six million, with 1.6 million Arab citizens of Israel. The surrounding Muslim states now far exceed 100 million.

The Muslim world has tried at least five times in wars against Israel – 1948, 1967, 1973 and the more recent wars with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon – to destroy Israel and murder or expel its entire population.

The peace treaties between Israel and Egypt are in danger as a result of the removal of President Mubarak by the Egyptian army, a coup that was urged by President Barack Obama. The treaty with Jordan is in danger. The King of Jordan, King Abdullah, whose own country is populated by Palestinians who make up about 60 percent of the population, is himself in danger. Abdullah’s father, King Hussein slaughtered thousands of supporters of Yasser Arafat then in Jordan on Black Friday, driving many more out of Jordan who fled to Lebanon from where they threatened Israel until Israel drove them out.  Throughout the intervening years, efforts have been made to have Israel and the Palestinians discuss the creation of a Palestinian state. A two-state solution, which every Israeli prime minister has supported, including Benjamin Netanyahu and which some Palestinians have supported with others still seeking the total annihilation of the Jewish state, e.g., Hamas, and others seeking not two states, but one state where the Muslims with their overwhelming birthrate advantage would become the majority in a future democratic election — which exists in Israel but nowhere else in the Arab world.

The question in all of the discussions on peace between the Israelis and Palestinians has revolved around three major controversial issues: Jerusalem, with the Palestinians demanding their capital be in that city; and demanding a return of all Palestinian refugees and their descendants now numbering 4.5 million to the state of Israel; and the lines of the new state.

The two  pre-Netanyahu prime ministers offered to share the capital of Jerusalem, giving to the Palestinian state that part of East Jerusalem in which Muslims now live, retaining for Israel that part of East Jerusalem in which 250,000 Jews now live and retaining about 3 percent of the West Bank in which about 300,000 Jews live. And most critical, requiring all Palestinian refugees seeking to return to be resettled in the new state of Palestine. The Palestinian leaders, Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, turned down the offers on every occasion. Also, neither Arab leader has been willing to state that they would recognize Israel as a Jewish state – they having a Muslim state – if and when an agreement creating two states was entered into.

And that is the nub of the disagreement in my opinion. Palestinians and their Arab allies have no intention of ever accepting a Jewish state in their midst. Many in the Muslim world believe that every square inch of Israel belongs to Islam and will someday be theirs; they have no intention of accepting the existence of a Jewish state. At best, they will accept a temporary truce with an entity called Israel which they will whittle away at, later overwhelm and absorb in the future.

Of course there are those who support the state of Israel because they are Jews by birth or religion both in Israel and the U.S. who have constantly berated the Israeli government – those in the past and the current one – for not being more forthcoming to the Palestinians, and see the latter’s terror tactics as understandable. One of the latest being the killing of an entire Jewish family of three children and the parents, including an infant, done by two Palestinian youths from the West Bank, now apprehended; and the indiscriminate shelling of southern Israel by Hamas with rockets aimed at Jewish cities and even at a school bus recently killing a Jewish child. These Jews appear indifferent to the threats of Hamas to expel every Jew who entered the historic Palestine mandate after 1917.  Some of the adherents to this indifference are part of the Jewish advocate group known as “ J Street.” I have no doubt some, had they lived in Nazi Germany, would have been among the Germans who said Hitler will change. He doesn’t really mean to carry out his threats to destroy us. Those German Jews learned at a terrible price that they were wrong, and that the world would sit by and allow Hitler using Adolf Eichmann to adopt and implement what became known as the Final Solution – the murder of all Jews.  For some, perhaps the image of the Palestinians is that of Lawrence of Arabia and his Bedouin followers. Do they recall or care that when Jordan occupied the old walled city of Jerusalem in 1948, it destroyed every synagogue in the Jewish quarter and removed Jewish gravestones, thousands of years old from the Mt. of Olives cemetery, using them to build latrines? Jordan held the West Bank and East Jerusalem for 19 years before the Six-Day War and never offered to create a Palestinian state, or a two-state solution.

All of this is by way of historic background to the speech delivered by President Obama on May 19, 2011.  Also as background is what happened in March of 2010 when President Obama displayed his hostility towards the Jewish State. He demanded that Israel cease all housing construction in East Jerusalem and on the West Bank in Jewish towns before talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority could proceed. Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed to a ten-month settlement construction moratorium on the West Bank.  Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State praised that action as “unprecedented.”  Israel’s prime minister refused to stop building residences for Jews in any part of Jerusalem, Israel’s capital.  President Obama then had the vice president Joe Biden – a great friend of Israel – make an extraordinarily harsh statement denouncing Israel, when on the previous day, he expressed his personal devotion to Israel, as well as the Obama administration’s “ironclad commitment to Israel’s security.” Even more disheartening and threatening were the threats voiced by Hillary Clinton in a telephone conversation she had with the Prime Minister, described in The New York Times of March 12, 2010, saying Israel’s plan for new housing units for Jews in East Jerusalem sent a “deeply negative signal about Israeli-American relations.” And of course, we all recall how rudely the Prime Minister was received by the President at the White House.

There are those who will say how does President Obama’s reference to boundaries differ from that proposed by President Bush. Both referred to the 1967 lines, actually a reference to the original 1948 lines “with mutually agreed swaps.” President Bush added language referring to the facts on the ground. But even more important than the phrasing is the lack of trust. Jews and Christian supporters of Israel in the U.S. and the Israeli people and their leaders trusted President Bush with respect to the U.S. commitment to Israel’s security and believed they could rely on the U.S. should Israel be once again attacked by the Arab nations.  Many people, myself included, believing in the two-state solution also believe Israel will be attacked again and, this time, Egypt may again be one of the attackers, as it was in 1973 before Sadat made peace with Israel. We do not have confidence that President Obama’s commitment to Israel’s security is truly “ironclad.”

Today we see the Egyptian army which is the government of Egypt deposing its President Mubarak, holding him in detention and threatening to put him on trial, joining with the Muslim Brotherhood. Many believe Sadat was killed by Egyptians aided by elements of the Egyptian army for having entered into a peace agreement with Israel. Egypt has also entered into closer relations with Iran which has said it will eliminate Israel from the face of the earth, presumably only awaiting its development of the nuclear bomb to achieve that.

What should President Obama have said to deal with these fears? He should have first said that Israel will only be called on to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority when Hamas now an equal partner with Fatah in the Palestinian governing authority agrees to three conditions, which the U.S. and the European Union have already stated on prior occasions, is required for them to recognize Hamas. They are, one, that Hamas accepts the existence and legitimacy of the state of Israel; two, that Hamas renounce the use of violence against Israel, and, three, that Hamas accepts all prior agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The U.S. policy has been that it will not recognize Hamas as a legitimate force unless it performs all three conditions. Further, President Obama should have required of the Palestinian Authority a public commitment stated in English, Arabic and Hebrew that upon conclusion of peace negotiations and the signing of a peace agreement, the Palestinian Authority will state it recognizes Israel as a Jewish state, which it has continually refused to do.

Why is Obama’s reference to mutually agreed swaps of land (exchanges) not adequate?  Because the Palestine Authority, particularly Hamas, is likely to refuse to agree to any exchange. Is that credible? Indeed, President Sadat when getting back the Sinai in the peace treaty with Israel was asked to allow the new Israeli city of Yamit built on the border, but in Sinai refused, declining any exchange of land and Israel had to agree, the treaty being more important.

President Obama asking Israel to negotiate with Hamas, which seeks its total destruction, set forth in its basic covenant as important in the operation of its government in Gaza as are the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence to the American people, would be akin to F.D.R. telling Winston Churchill that he had to, in World War II before we entered that war, negotiate a settlement with Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany.

On leaving a movie theater over the weekend, a young African-American man about 40 years old who noticed I looked weary, asked if I would like to use the wall in front of which he stood to lean against. I declined with thanks and we struck up a conversation. He said, “What did you think of President Obama’s speech?” I said, “I didn’t like the part on Israel.” He said, “Oh, that’s too bad. I think he really likes Jews.” I said, “I don’t believe he is anti-Semitic, but I do believe he favors a better relationship with the Muslim countries, even if it is at Israel’s expense.”

If President Obama does not change his position, I cannot vote for his reelection. I’ve already made clear. I won’t vote for some crazy who urges we jettison Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as federal programs. I can stay home.

President Obama’s efforts to reassure supporters of Israel, at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on May 22 did not reassure me.  Those assurances reported by the Times today “that the United States commitment to Israel’s long term security was ironclad,” rings hollow, knowing iron breaks and was broken back in March 2010.

Adding to the lack of credibility on this issue of secure borders is what Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator said, reported in today’s Times, “I am waiting to hear from Prime Minister Netanyahu. Does he accept the doctrine of two states on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps or not? (emphasis added). Before we hear that acceptance, we are just grinding water.” And, he is Fatah. Imagine the response of Hamas.

President Obama’s remarks have lifted up the spirits of Palestinians, who now believe he has given them the upper hand. Supporters of Israel, Jews and Christians, Democrats and Republicans, now is the time to make your positions known.  Members of Congress, you are not potted plants. Let the President know you disagree with him. We must stand strong for Israel in this time of danger.

Ed Koch On The Arab Uprising

Here's Ed Koch's analysis of the situation in the Islamic world, excerpted from his e-mail.

"The Muslim world is on fire. Mobs are filling the streets of Cairo; the people of Tunisia have forced out its dictatorial president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali; and in Lebanon, Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, has been responsible for the fall of the government led by Saad Hariri, son of a former prime minister who was murdered by a huge car bomb. Syria and Hezbollah are suspected of committing the terrorist act. Hezbollah now is the major supporter of the new prime minister, Najib Mikati.
 

"Iran continues with its efforts to build a nuclear bomb. Pakistan, already in possession of a nuclear bomb, remains an unstable U.S. ally....  The Turkish government, admittedly Islamist, continues to hammer Israel, and appears to be seeking leadership of the Muslim world by joining with militants who see the United States as the enemy and terrorists who are attacking Western civilization in their announced desire to impose Sharia, the Muslim code of living, which includes punishment of death by stoning for crimes such as adultery, blasphemy, homosexuality or converting to another religion.

"Iraq continues with its near daily slaughtering of innocent civilians, based on the historic religious wars between Shiites and Sunnis. In Afghanistan, the lives of our own military personnel are put at risk every day in an unwinnable war, where were we to win, we would be winning nothing worth fighting and dying for. Syria still covets Lebanon as a lost province and provides arms to Hezbollah which threatens a new war with Israel. What worries the U.S. most is that two governments friendly to the U.S., Egypt and Jordan, are now in danger of falling.

"What does all of this chaos in Arab and Muslim populated lands display?  It should put to rest the opinion of the radical left in the U.S. that all would be well in the world if the West would abandon Israel. That radical left supports bringing Israel’s independence to an end and supporting the Palestinians in their efforts to turn all of historic Palestine into a single state with an Arab Muslim majority, some of whom – Hamas -- are bent on expelling Jews; others for allowing them to live and practice their religion if they accept the supremacy of Islam.

".... [Is] the West, in particular the U.S., willing to stand up to the constant attacks on us, physical and economic, or will we at some point decide to go down the road that Chamberlain chose in 1938 when he met with Adolf Hitler, came back to England paper in hand referring to “Peace in our time,” having thrown Czechoslovakia under the bus? Winston Churchill commented, "Britain and France were faced with a choice between war and dishonor. They chose dishonor. They will have war."

"We are now faced with Muslim crowds in the capitals of Arab countries demanding the ouster of governments -- Egypt and Jordan -- that are at all friendly to the U.S.  Will we now desert those governments the way Britain and France deserted Czechoslovakia?

"Yes, the governments of Egypt and Jordan are repressive and dictatorial and the crowds in the streets are  primarily using the rhetoric of democracy now. But historically, when they win, become even more repressive and threatening to the world, e.g., Iran. So there is the conundrum and a Hobbesian choice to be made. Do we side with the repressive governments that are friendly to the U.S. – Mubarak of Egypt and Abdullah of Jordan and others as well – or do we simply support those mouthing the chants of democracy and take our chances, knowing that many in those mobs would, if given the chance, slit the throats of every Christian and Jew who won’t willingly convert to Islam. I urge everyone not to forget the coldblooded killing of Wall Street Journal reporter, Daniel Pearl, by Pakistani terrorists who literally severed his head from his body back in 2002, on video for all to see.

"World peace is on the line. Egypt, with 80 million people, is the same size as Germany, but with a much younger population. I believe (and I confess I am no expert, but there are apparently few experts who predicted the current state of affairs) that it is folly to desert our friends and allies, e.g., Mubarak and King Abdullah and Saudi Arabia when they need us. Did we make the right choice when we deserted the Shah of Iran and stood by when Khomeini was lifted to power by the violence in the streets of Tehran? I don’t think so and believe the repression and torture became worse.

"....  As the U.S. chooses sides, let's remember our fateful abandonment of our ally, the Shah of Iran, a decision for which we are still paying a heavy price."

A Dangerous Silence, By Ed Koch

I weep as I witness outrageous verbal attacks on Israel. What takes these verbal assaults and distortions all the more painful is that they are being orchestrated by President Obama.
For me, the situation today recalls what occurred when the Roman emperor Vespasian launched a military campaign against the Jewish nation and its ancient capital of Jerusalem. Ultimately, Masada, a rock plateau in the Judean desert became the last refuge of the Jewish people against the Roman onslaught. I have been to Jerusalem and Masada. From the top of Masada, you can still see the remains of the Roman fortifications and garrisons, and the stones and earth of the Roman siege ramp that was used to reach Masada. The Jews of Masada committed suicide rather than let themselves be taken captive by the Romans.

In Rome itself, I have seen the Arch of Titus with the sculpture showing enslaved Jews and the treasures of the Jewish Temple of Solomon with the Menorah, the symbol of the Jewish state, being carted away as booty during the sacking of Jerusalem.

Oh, you may say, that is a far fetched analogy. Please hear me out.

The most recent sacking of the old city of Jerusalem — its Jewish quarter — took place under the Jordanians in 1948 in the first war between the Jews and the Arabs, with at least five Muslim states — Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq — seeking to destroy the Jewish state. At that time, Jordan conquered East Jerusalem and the West Bank and expelled every Jew living in the Jewish quarter of the old city, destroying every building, including the synagogues in the old quarter and expelling from every part of Judea and Samaria every Jew living there so that for the first time in thousands of years, the old walled city of Jerusalem and the adjacent West Bank were "Judenrein" — a term used by the Nazis to indicate the forced removal or murder of all Jews.
Jews had lived for centuries in Hebron, the city where Abraham, the first Jew, pitched his tent and where he now lies buried, it is believed, in a tomb with his wife, Sarah, as well as other ancient Jewish patriarchs and matriarchs. I have visited that tomb and at the time asked an Israeli soldier guarding it — so that it was open to all pilgrims, Christians, Muslims and Jews — "where is the seventh step leading to the tomb of Abraham and Sarah," which was the furthest entry for Jews when the Muslims were the authority controlling the holy place? He replied, "When we retook and reunited the whole city of Jerusalem and conquered the West Bank in 1967, we removed the steps, so now everyone can enter," whereas when Muslims were in charge of the tomb, no Jew could enter it. And I did.

I am not a religious person. I am comfortable in a synagogue, but generally attend only twice a year, on the high holidays. When I entered the tomb of Abraham and Sarah, as I recall, I felt connected with my past and the traditions of my people. One is a Jew first by birth and then by religion. Those who leave their religion, remain Jews forever by virtue of their birth. If they don't think so, let them ask their neighbors, who will remind them. I recall the words of the columnist Robert Novak, who was for most of his life hostile to the Jewish state of Israel in an interview with a reporter stating that while he had converted to Catholicism, he was still a cultural Jew. I remain with pride a Jew both by religion and culture.

My support for the Jewish state has been long and steadfast. Never have I thought that I would leave the U.S. to go and live in Israel. My loyalty and love is first to the U.S. which has given me, the son of Polish Jewish immigrants, so much. But, I have also long been cognizant of the fact that every night when I went to sleep in peace and safety, there were Jewish communities around the world in danger. And there was one country, Israel, that would give them sanctuary and would send its soldiers to fight for them and deliver them from evil, as Israel did at Entebbe in 1976.

I weep today because my president, Barack Obama, in a few weeks has changed the relationship between the U.S. and Israel from that of closest of allies to one in which there is an absence of trust on both sides. The contrast between how the president and his administration deals with Israel and how it has decided to deal with the Karzai administration in Afghanistan is striking.

The Karzai administration, which operates a corrupt and opium-producing state, refuses to change its corrupt ways — the president's own brother is believed by many to run the drug traffic taking place in Afghanistan — and shows the utmost contempt for the U.S. is being hailed by the Obama administration as an ally and publicly treated with dignity. Karzai recently even threatened to join the Taliban if we don't stop making demands on him. Nevertheless, Karzai is receiving a gracious thank-you letter from President Obama. The New York Times of April 10th reported, "…that Mr. Obama had sent Mr. Karzai a thank-you note expressing gratitude to the Afghan leader for dinner in Kabul. 'It was a respectful letter,' General Jones said."
On the other hand, our closest ally — the one with the special relationship with the U.S., has been demeaned and slandered, held responsible by the administration for our problems in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. The plan I suspect is to so weaken the resolve of the Jewish state and its leaders that it will be much easier to impose on Israel an American plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, leaving Israel's needs for security and defensible borders in the lurch.

I believe President Obama's policy is to create a whole new relationship with the Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, and Iraq as a counter to Iran — The Tyrannosaurus Rex of the Muslim world which we are now prepared to see in possession of a nuclear weapon. If throwing Israel under the bus is needed to accomplish this alliance, so be it.

I am shocked by the lack of outrage on the part of Israel's most ardent supporters. The members of AIPAC, the chief pro-Israel lobbying organization in Washington, gave Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a standing ovation after she had carried out the instructions of President Obama and, in a 43-minute telephone call, angrily hectored Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Members of Congress in both the House and Senate have made pitifully weak statements against Obama's mistreatment of Israel, if they made any at all. The Democratic members, in particular, are weak. They are simply afraid to criticize President Obama.

What bothers me most of all is the shameful silence and lack of action by community leaders — Jew and Christian. Where are they? If this were a civil rights matter, the Jews would be in the mall in Washington protesting with and on behalf of our fellow American citizens. I asked one prominent Jewish leader why no one is preparing a march on Washington similar to the one in 1963 at which I was present and Martin Luther King's memorable speech was given? His reply was "Fifty people might come." Remember the 1930s? Few stood up. They were silent. Remember the most insightful statement of one of our greatest teachers, Rabbi Hillel: "If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?"

We have indeed stood up for everyone else. When will we stand up for our brothers and sisters living in the Jewish state of Israel?
If Obama is seeking to build a siege ramp around Israel, the Jews of modern Israel will not commit suicide. They are willing to negotiate a settlement with the Palestinians, but they will not allow themselves to be bullied into following self-destructive policies.

To those who call me an alarmist, I reply that I'll be happy to apologize if I am proven wrong. But those who stand silently by and watch the Obama administration abandon Israel, to whom will they apologize?