By Ed Koch Jewish Press August 18, 2004

My decision to vote for the reelection of President George W. Bush, despite the fact that I am a life-long Democrat, has caused some to call me a turncoat. But am I really? Or am I moving in a direction the Democratic Party itself should be going?

As mayor of New York City, I described myself as \u201ca liberal with sanity.\u201d It troubled me that over the years, the Democratic Party had drifted toward the radical left. The vast majority of registered Democrats, and those who identify with that party, were and are moderates. As mayor and in the years since I left public office, I made it my mission to strengthen the Democratic Party by moving it closer to the center.

I supported and admired President Bill Clinton, who followed the same course on the national level. For the same reasons, I applauded the success of Prime Minister Tony Blair, who recreated the Labor Party in Great Britain, calling it the \u201cNew\u201d Labor Party and getting rid of some of its obsolete socialist programs so that it now appealed to moderates. As a result, its majorities became enormous.

During my mayoralty, I occasionally endorsed Republicans in the Albany Legislature. I didn\u2019t always agree with many of their positions, particularly their opposition to a woman\u2019s right to an abortion. (I am for the rights provided under Roe vs. Wade.) But I believed those individuals had demonstrated a willingness to lend financial support to the City of New York which was then on the edge of bankruptcy.

Over the years, I have crossed party lines in mayoral elections because I believed that John Lindsay, Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg, for whom I campaigned and voted, would be far better for the City of New York than the Democratic candidates running against them. Party affiliation is an important consideration but should never be dispositive when casting a vote.

Now, for the first time in my life, I am going to vote for a Republican candidate for president, the incumbent George W. Bush. I voted for Al Gore in 2000. I was one of the few Democratic leaders who supported Gore in the 1988 Democratic presidential primary. That year, Michael Dukakis received 45 percent of the primary vote in New York City, Gore 7 percent \u2013 and Jesse Jackson carried the city with 46 percent. With his endorsement of Howard Dean this year and his strident speeches calling President Bush a liar, Gore has certainly demonstrated that he has moved considerably to the left since his defeat.

Why have I endorsed George W. Bush when I don\u2019t agree with him on a single domestic issue? Because I believe the issue of international terrorism trumps all other issues. I don\u2019t believe the Democratic Party has the stomach and commitment to deliver on this issue. I believe terrorism will be with us for many years to come. So long as Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd are considered major leaders of the Democratic Party, and so long as we have radical candidates like Howard Dean, whose radical-left supporters have been described by the press as \u201cDeaniacs,\u201d the Democratic Party will be limited in its ability to serve the country well in times of crisis.

Everyone familiar with my political career knows that along with my deep love for and gratitude to the United States and the City of New York for giving me extraordinary opportunities to serve the public, I am a Jew proud of my people\u2019s history and accomplishments. Over the years, I have expressed my anxieties at the escalating worldwide anti-Semitism that now abounds in Western European countries such as France, England, Germany, Belgium, Holland and throughout Eastern Europe, including Russia. We haven\u2019t seen the likes of this rising tide of hatred directed at Jews since the 1930\u2019s. So of course I am interested in the views of the two presidential candidates toward Israel and its security.

President George W. Bush has amazed me. Bush 41, the father, was not particularly good on this issue. I do not believe that he is anti-Semitic, but his secretary of state, James Baker, perhaps summed up the attitude prevailing in that administration when he said, \u201c[expletive] the Jews. They don\u2019t vote for us anyway.\u201d

Bush 43, the son, has fallen far from that tree. I believe most Jewish leaders will concede that of all U.S. presidents, Bush 43 has been the most supportive and protective of the security of the State of Israel.

Among the condemnations I have received for supporting President Bush was the following letter:

Mr. Koch. I am Jewish. I had the displeasure of hearing you say you will vote for Dubya Bush in November. I turned off the program after that because of Israel. I\u2019d like to remind you this election is for President of the U.S. not for the leaders of Israel. I could give you 100\u2019s of reasons to not vote for Bush, but you\u2019ve already become a turncoat.

I responded as follows:

Jews have priorities and are entitled to them just like every other ethnic group in America. Mexican-Americans are especially interested in the position of the presidential candidates on amnesty for illegal aliens. African-Americans are understandably interested in the safety of Africans in the Sudan who are subject to genocide at the hands of the Arab-dominated Sudanese government. Christians surely will be very concerned about the murders and injuries of Christians attending Mass in Iraq at five churches by Islamic terrorists. I could list many more. All Americans should be concerned about these outrages. Having such priorities does not make you less American, but more American. For Jews, it is the security of the State of Israel. When 200 French Jews recently left France out of fear of persecution by Muslim toughs in that country, they knew that Israel would take them without condition, which was not the case when Jews were fleeing Germany before World War II.

However, you are misinformed on my position as to why I support President Bush for reelection. I support him because of the Bush Doctrine \u2013 \u201cWe will go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them.\u201d He has demonstrated that he means it by invading Afghanistan and Iraq, both threats to their regions and to the U.S. I do not believe that the Democratic Party, which is now dominated by those who preferred Governor Dean for president but decided he could not win, has the stomach to take on worldwide terrorism. Indeed, a New York Times-CBS poll of the delegates at the Boston Convention demonstrated their opposition to John Kerry\u2019s position which is not to get out of Iraq now. It is the party activists whom the candidate has to rely on to get elected and whose positions generally prevail.

I have held public office for 23 years. I was elected five times as congressman and three times as mayor with super majorities after the first election for each office. New Yorkers trusted my insights and common sense, and I believe they still do. The Islamic terrorists, in the words of Lee Hamilton, \u201cwant to kill us,\u201d and there are hundreds of millions of them. I want a president who is willing to go after them before they have the chance to kill us.

There is nothing wrong with American Jews, concerned for the safety of all Americans, to be grateful that President Bush supports the State of Israel when European states in fear of terrorism capitulate to the demands of the terrorists and are hostile to Israel.

I do not expect to convince you, but I do hope that you will respect my opinion and experience.

For those who say that John Kerry would be just as good as George Bush on the issue of Israel, let me cite an article from The New York Sun dated August 4, 2004:

\u201cIn a speech he made last December at the Council on Foreign Relations, Mr. Kerry said he would consider sending Mr. Carter or Mr. Baker as his personal envoy to make peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. Both men are associated with using America\u2019s special relationship with Israel to pressure the nation into untenable concessions.\u201d

The article went on, \u201cMr. Levine told The Sun yesterday that Mr. Kerry instantly regretted making those comments. \u2018The truth on the envoy issue is that his staff got out ahead of him and released a statement he had not seen; when he saw it he was extremely upset about it and it did not reflect his views. Rather than withdraw at that moment, he allowed it to stay in the speech. He regretted it before he said it, but made the decision that taking it out of the speech at that time would call more attention than leaving it in. He has subsequently made abundantly and repeatedly clear he would not appoint an envoy that does not have the trust of both sides.\u2019 \u201d

Does anyone seriously believe that Kerry saw the offending reference for the first time when he delivered that major speech? A major speech on foreign policy would have been vetted and practiced by the candidate and his advisers a dozen times before delivery. Does anyone believe that if he disagreed with a statement in that speech, he would not have deleted it? Does anyone believe that while disagreeing with the statement, he delivered it anyway thinking there would be less damage than if he removed it?

I found it both interesting and disturbing that Kerry omitted any reference to Israel during his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention. To his credit, vice presidential candidate John Edwards did think it important to mention the need to protect the security of the State of Israel.

I am convinced that President Bush will never trade Israel\u2019s special relationship with the U.S. for political support, be it domestic or international. I doubt that John Kerry and the \u201cDeaniacs\u201d who now embrace him would have the same resolve.

I am appalled at the refusal of so many in the Jewish community, particularly in New York City, to support the president\u2019s reelection. I know them well. When I was mayor, receiving 75 and 78 percent of the vote in my second and third reelections, I did better with Catholics than I did with Jews. The exit poll numbers in one of those elections showed that 81 percent of the Irish and Italians (Catholics) voted for me, while only 73 percent of the Jews did.

I always cited those numbers to reporters and editorial board writers with a laugh, but like Taddeo, the clown of the opera Pagliacci, that laugh masked a lot of pain. I was not sufficiently liberal for the so-called Upper West Side Jews.

We Jews know there has never been a president of the United States as supportive of the Jewish community and its overwhelming concern \u2013 the security of the State of Israel \u2013 as George W. Bush. Nevertheless, the Jewish community, which should be supporting his reelection, has not and, it appears at the moment, will not to the extent he deserves. Jews are expected to vote overwhelmingly for John Kerry.

In the election of 2000, George W. Bush received 19 percent of the Jewish vote. Ronald Reagan, when he ran against Jimmy Carter in 1980, won the support of 39 percent of Jewish voters. While Reagan was terrific in his support of Israel, even he was not as good as George W. Bush. (Reagan\u2019s domestic philosophy was similar to that of Bush.)

Current Jewish supporters of the president hope to secure for him somewhere in the range of 30 to 35 percent of the Jewish vote. He is in my opinion entitled to an absolute majority \u2013 more than 50 percent.

If \u2013 after taking on the European Union and the Muslim states around the world and incurring the wrath of almost all the members of the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council by casting vetoes against unfair Security Council resolutions that singled out Israel for condemnation \u2013 President Bush does not receive a majority of the Jewish vote, we would be an ungrateful people.

Recently, Rabbi David Saperstein, director and counsel of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, sent a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell enclosing a resolution which directly and by implication criticized the president for not demonstrating \u201creal leadership in the peace process\u201d and the Congress for failing \u201cto recognize the need for withdrawal to be directly linked to a return to the negotiating table\u201d and for not addressing \u201cthe troubling humanitarian conditions of the Palestinians.\u201d

I sent Rabbi Saperstein the following letter, along with an earlier draft of this column:

Dear Rabbi Saperstein:

Your criticism last week of President Bush and the Congress outlined in your letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell was about as foolish and destructive as any statement on the subject could have been. I thought that you might like to have my statement which was made not with respect to your letter, which was brought to my attention today, but to what I intend to do in the forthcoming election. Before today, I never fully understood the statement, \u201cJews are their own worst enemies.\u201d Today, I understand. Your statement made it abundantly clear to me.

When non-Jewish supporters of the American Jewish community receive letters and resolutions from Jews and Jewish organizations criticizing members of Congress and the President for doing too much for Israel and not enough for the Palestinians, the members of Congress and the President will undoubtedly think to themselves, \u201cWhy do I do anything for these people? If I am silent, no one will berate me. When I demonstrate strong support for Israel, I am assailed by supporters of the Palestinians, joined in now by leaders of a sector of the Jewish community having 1.5 million adherents and more than 900 congregations.\u201d

Why are we so intent on engaging in masochistic, some might say, suicidal behavior?

We Jews must learn to support our friends, because, God knows, our enemies are numerous and the threat they pose is growing by the day.

Ed Koch served as mayor of New York from 1978 to 1990. He is currently a partner at Bryan Cave LLP.

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 9th, 2004 and is filed under opinion.