Koch Slams Obama: Israel Facing ‘Most Dangerous and Critical Period’ Ever


ed-kochDemocratic senior statesman Ed Koch says Israel is facing its “most dangerous and critical period” and he is ready to break with his party in the next presidential election over President Obama’s policies on the Middle East.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, the former New York City mayor said, “Mitt Romney correctly summed it up when he said that President Obama has once again thrown Israel under the bus.

“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.”

Koch, who crossed party lines to support President George W. Bush against John Kerry in 2004 due to his foreign policy stance, said he would do it again. All it would take is the right candidate.

“I’m a Democrat. I support the Democratic domestic philosophy and policies and will always be supportive of them,” said Koch, mayor of America’s largest city from 1978-89. “But I have no hesitation in crossing party lines when I think America’s interests demand that I cross party lines.

“I supported President Obama, believing he would be good on foreign policy, particularly with respect to the support of Israel. It turned out badly.”

But 86-year-old Koch said that no “decent” Republican candidate has yet come forward – “their efforts to privatize social security and Medicare and Medicaid absolutely turn me off,” he said.

“Now if a Republican candidate were to appear who was good on Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid and support of Israel, I wouldn’t hesitate to cross party lines.”

Koch was speaking in the light of Obama’s Thursday speech on the Middle East in which the President called for a two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine gridlock with borders that were in place before 1967.

Koch said he believes the president took the position because “he thinks it’s more important that America have the support of the Arab nations as opposed to the support of what we heretofore have said was our ally in the Mideast – the only democratic state there.”

But he said he has doubts that the speech will affect the support that Jewish voters have traditionally given Democratic presidential candidates.

“Regrettably the Jewish vote has been tied to the Democratic Party since FDR. No matter who’s running for president, many Jews think it’s still FDR.

“That’s been harmful to the Jewish community supporting the State of Israel.”

{Newsmax/Matzav.com Newscenter}


  1. Koch voted for GW Bush. GW Bush is the president who with Olmert offered all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem with land swaps with the exception of the 3 major settlement blocs. This is stated in GW Bush’s memoirs and in Olmerts writings.

    Koch along with every other hysterical person doesnt see what they are reading and hearing in Obamas speech which is exactly what Bush and Olmert implemented.


    Bush and Olmert offered almost all of the West Bank and non Jewish sections of East Jerusalem. This is written by George Bush in his memoirs, it was written by Olmert. And the palestine papaers leak in Wikileaks notes that the offer was 93.5% of the West Bank with a 5.8% swap of portion of the state of Israel in return. this means that an equivalent to 99.3% of land mass to the 67 borders were offered.

    Obama has not gone beyond that in the speech, quote:
    [Obama] “Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them — not by the United States; not by anybody else. But endless delay won’t make the problem go away. What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows — a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.
    So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state….”

  3. President Obama just said in the BBC on May 20th a day after the mideast speech:
    “The basis for negotiations will be looking at that 1967 border recognizing that the conditions on the ground have changed and there are going to need to be swaps to accomadate the interests of both sides, that’s on the one hand. On the other hand, this was a an equally important part of the speech, Israel’s going to to have to feel confident about its security on the West Bank and that security element is going to be important to the Israeli’s. They will not be able to move forward unless they feel that they themselves can defend their territory particularly given what they’ve seen happen in Gaza and the rockets that have been fired by Hezbollah so our argument is let’s get started on a conversation about territory and about security. That doesn’t resolve all the issues you still end up having the problem of Jerusalem and you still end up having the problem of refugees. But if we make progress on what two states would look like, a reality sets in among the parties “ this is how it’s going to end up” then it becomes easier for both sides to make difficult concessions to resolve those two other issues.”

  4. No one can expect the President of the U.S. to be more concerned with Israel’s security than the Prime Minister of Israel himself.

    Consequently, one cannot blame President Bush for supporting such a generous offer to Palestinians, in light of the fact that Olmert was Prime Minister at the time and was, in George F. Will’s words, the worst leader any country ever had.

  5. Beyond my previous comment, it makes absolutely no difference what offer anyone makes to the Palestinians, if it does not include the entirety of Eretz Yisroel they are not going to sign. Ehud Barak gave Arafat the most generous offer the Palestinians ever had, and got the intifada in exchange.