This is a speech by the American Jewish official holding the highest office in the government ever held by a Jew, a person who has tempered his remarks throughout his career, now expressing a "no confidence" vote against Netanyahu and his cabinet members within Israel's current government; via remarks stated in clear terms.
This is a landmark step in our nation toward holding open debate over something Israel is doing, and has done. It was needed, and a show of courage by Schumer in being the one to do it.
I rise to speak today about what I believe can — and should — be the
path forward to secure mutual peace and lasting prosperity for Israelis
and Palestinians.
I speak for myself, but I also speak for so many mainstream Jewish
Americans — a silent majority — whose nuanced views on the matter have
never been well represented in this country’s discussions about the war
in Gaza.
My last name is Schumer, which derives from the Hebrew word Shomer,
or “guardian.” Of course, my first responsibility is to America and New
York. But as the first Jewish Majority Leader of the United States
Senate, and the highest-ranking Jewish elected official in America ever,
I also feel very keenly my responsibility as Shomer Yisroel — a
guardian of the People of Israel.
Throughout Jewish history, there have been many Shomrim, and plenty
who were far greater than I claim to be. But nonetheless, this is the
position in which I find myself now — at a time of great difficulty for
the State of Israel, for the Jewish people, and for non-Jewish friends
of Israel.
So I feel an immense obligation to speak and act.
I speak as a member of a community of Jewish Americans that I know
very well. They are my family, my friends. Many of them are my
constituents, many of them are Democrats and many are deeply concerned
about the pursuit of justice, both in New York and around the globe.
From the Talmud — Tikkun Olam, the call to “repair the world” — has
driven Jews around the globe to do what is right.
We love Israel in our bones. What Israel has meant to my generation,
within living memory of the Holocaust, is impossible to measure. The
flowering of the Jewish people in the desert from the ashes of the
Holocaust, and the fulfillment of the dream of a Jewish homeland — after
nearly two thousand years of praying and waiting — represents one of
the most heartfelt causes of my life.
And unlike some younger Americans, I remember how hard it was to
achieve that dream. I remember clutching my transistor radio to my ear
in James Madison High School during the Six Day War wondering if Israel
would be pushed into the sea.
If the events of the last few months have made anything clear, it is
that Israel is surrounded by vicious enemies, and there are many people
around the world who excuse and even support their aims to expel and
kill Jews living in their hard-won land of refuge.
|
US Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer speaks on the Senate floor on March 14, 2024. (Video screen capture) |
I will never underestimate the grave threats Israel faces — and has
faced — for the entirety of its existence, nor will I ever underestimate
the oppression that the Jewish people have endured for millennia.
It is precisely out of this long-standing connection to, and concern
for, the State of Israel and its people that I speak today about what I
view are the most pressing existential threats to Israel’s long-term
peace and prosperity.
After five months of suffering on both sides of this conflict, our
thinking must turn — urgently — to how we can achieve lasting peace, and
ensure prosperity and security for both the Jewish people and the
Palestinian people in the Middle East.
I believe that to achieve that lasting peace — which we so long for —
Israel must make some significant course corrections, which I will
outline in this speech.
But first, let’s not forget how we arrived at this critical moment.
What Hamas did on October 7 was brutal beyond imagination. I have sat
with the families of those killed in the assault. I have seen the
footage and heard the stories of innocents murdered and raped in
heartless cruelty. As long as I live, I will never forget these images —
this pure and premeditated evil.
Many of my family members were killed by Nazis in the Holocaust.
October 7 and the shameless response to support that terrorist attack by
some in America and around the globe have awakened the deepest fears of
the Jewish people — that our annihilation remains a possibility.
Today, over 130 hostages remain captive in Gaza. I am anguished by
the plight of so many hostages still trapped deep inside Hamas’s network
of tunnels. I pray for them, and for their families, who have inspired
me with their tenacious advocacy to ensure their loved ones are not
forgotten.
Many of them are Americans: Jonathan Dekel Chen, Hersch Goldberg
Polin; and some are my constituents in New York: Omer Neutra, Keith
Siegel and Itay Chen, who we tragically learned this week was brutally
killed on October 7 while serving near the Gaza border. Hamas still
holds his body, as well as those of Americans Judi Weinstein and Gad
Haggai.
I have sat with many of these families and I have wept with them.
Each day that their loved ones don’t come home carries enough anguish
and grief to last a lifetime.
I am working in every way I can to support the Biden Administration
as negotiations continue to free every last one of the hostages. I urge
every actor at the table — the Israelis, the Biden Administration, the
Qataris, the Egyptians, and anybody else at the table — to continue
doing everything possible to get to a deal. Hamas has been given a deal
already. They should say yes. There is no time to waste.
My heart also breaks at the loss of so many civilian lives in Gaza. I
am anguished that the Israeli war campaign has killed so many innocent
Palestinians. I know that my fellow Jewish Americans feel this same
anguish when they see the images of dead and starving children and
destroyed homes.
Gaza is experiencing a humanitarian catastrophe — entire families
wiped out, whole neighborhoods reduced to rubble, mass displacement,
children suffering.
We should not let the complexities of this conflict stop us from
stating the plain truth: Palestinian civilians do not deserve to suffer
for the sins of Hamas, and Israel has a moral obligation to do better.
The United States has an obligation to do better.
I believe the United States must provide robust humanitarian aid to
Gaza, and pressure the Israelis to let more of it get through to the
people who need it.
Jewish people throughout the centuries have empathized with those who
are suffering and who are oppressed because we have known so much of
that ourselves. As the Torah teaches us, every human life is precious,
and every single innocent life lost, whether Israeli or Palestinian, is a
tragedy that as Scripture says, “destroys an entire world.”
What horrifies so many Jews especially is our sense that Israel is
falling short of upholding these distinctly Jewish values that we hold
so dear. We must be better than our enemies, lest we become them.
Israel has a fundamental right to defend itself, but as I have said
from the beginning of this war — how it exercises that right matters.
Israel must prioritize the protection of civilian casualties when
identifying military targets. I have repeatedly called upon the Israeli
government to do so.
But it must also be said that Israel is by no means the only one
responsible for the immense civilian toll. To blame only Israel for the
deaths of Palestinians is unfair, one-sided and deliberately
manipulative — and it ignores Hamas’s role in this conflict.
Hamas has knowingly invited an immense civilian toll during this war.
Their goal on October 7 was to provoke a tough response from Israel by
killing as many Jews as possible in the most vicious manner possible —
by raping women, executing babies, desecrating bodies, brutalizing whole
communities.
Since then, Hamas has heartlessly hidden behind their fellow
Palestinians by turning hospitals into command centers, and refugee
camps into missile-launching sites. It is well documented that Hamas
soldiers use innocent Gazans as human shields. The leaders of Hamas,
many of whom live lives of luxury in places far away from the poverty
and misfortune of Gaza, do not care one iota about the Palestinians for
whom they claim to nobly fight.
It bothers me deeply that most media outlets covering this war, and
many protesters opposing it, have placed the blame for civilian
casualties entirely on Israel. All too often, in the media and at
protests, it is never noted that Hamas has gone to great lengths to make
themselves inseparable from the civilian population of Gaza by using
Palestinians as human shields.
Too many news agencies and newspapers give Hamas a pass by hardly
ever discussing this shameful practice that is central to their fighting
strategy, and this has led to an inaccurate perception of the harsh
realities of this war. I believe stories that justifiably mention the
loss of innocent Palestinian life should also note how Hamas uses
civilians as human shields. It almost never happens. And I believe that
every protest that justifiably decries the loss of innocent Palestinian
men, women and children, should also denounce Hamas for their central
role in the bloodshed.
When protesters decry the loss of Palestinian life, but never condemn
this perfidy or the loss of Israeli lives, it confounds and deeply
troubles the vast majority of Jewish and non-Jewish Americans alike who
support the State of Israel.
Given that Hamas launched their attack on October 7 to provoke
Israel, given that Hamas sought the ensuing civilian toll in Gaza, given
that Hamas wanted both Israelis and Arabs to be at each other’s
throats… tensions on both sides have dramatically intensified.
And now, as a result of these inflamed tensions in both the Israeli
and Palestinian communities, people on all sides of this war are turning
away from a two-state solution — including Israel’s Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, who in recent weeks has said out loud repeatedly
what many have long suspected by outright rejecting the idea of
Palestinian statehood and sovereignty.
As the highest-ranking Jewish elected official in our government, and
a staunch defender of Israel, I rise today to say unequivocally: This
is a grave mistake. For Israel. For Palestinians. For the region and the
world.
The only real and sustainable solution to this decades-old conflict
is a negotiated two-state solution — a demilitarized Palestinian state
living side-by-side with Israel in equal measures of peace, security,
prosperity, dignity and mutual recognition.
Both Jews and Palestinians have long historic claims to this land.
Contrary to the unfounded, absurd and offensive claims by some that the
Jewish people are “colonizers” in their ancestral homeland, Jewish
people have lived in the Holy Land continuously for more than three
millennia. For centuries, Jews have made aliyah and gone to the land of
Israel to live and settle. For centuries, at Passover, Jews at every
corner of the globe have prayed, “Next year in Jerusalem.”
A Jewish homeland in Israel is no twentieth-century contrivance.
Israel is our historic home. A home for people oppressed for centuries.
The Palestinians, too, have lived on the land for generations, and in
past centuries, they have formed their own distinct culture, identity,
cuisine and literature. The idea espoused by some that “There is no such
thing as Palestinians” today is inaccurate, offensive and unhelpful.
The only just solution to this predicament is one in which each people can flourish in their own state side-by-side.
But for a two-state solution to work over the long term, it has to include real and meaningful compromises by both sides.
For example, too many Israelis who say they want a two-state solution
don’t acknowledge how the amount and extent of expanding settlements
render that a virtual impossibility.
And too many Palestinians who say they want a two-state solution
don’t acknowledge how their insistence on an unequivocal “right of
return” is a fatal impediment to progress.
Both ways of thinking are impeding the peace process.
And there are others on the left who view a two-state solution with
skepticism as an ideal that will never happen, a far-off goal that
allows for the continuation of the status quo in Gaza and the West Bank,
where Palestinians face unique obstacles compared to their Israeli
counterparts. As a result, they reject a two-state solution in favor of
one state, where Palestinians and Israelis would supposedly live in
democratic peace side-by-side.
I can understand the idealism that inspires so many young people in
particular to support a one-state solution. Why can’t we all live
side-by-side and house-by-house in peace?
I count at least two reasons why this wouldn’t work, and why it is unacceptable to most Jewish people.
First, this combined state could take an extreme turn politically,
putting Jewish Israelis in peril. This state would be majority
Palestinian, and in the past, some Palestinians have voted to empower
groups like Hamas, which seeks to eradicate the Jewish people.
It is longstanding American policy to support democracy overseas, but
in this hypothetical single state, democracy could cost Israeli Jews
their safety if extremists were to take control of this new state of
affairs to ultimately achieve their true aim: the violent expulsion of
Jews from the Holy Land.
This is no abstract fear. Thousands of years of Jewish history show
that when things go badly, the people of the country in which Jews live —
even in a democracy — all too often turn on them as convenient
scapegoats. There is no guarantee this wouldn’t happen again in a single
Israeli-Palestinian state. To have Palestinian voters be the protectors
of Israeli Jews would be a bridge too far to accept.
Second, Jews have a right to their own state. It is troubling to me
that many people, especially on the left, seem to acknowledge and even
celebrate this right to statehood for every group but the Jews. If a
national homeland for all peoples of the world has been the driving goal
of the anticolonial movement of the last century, then why are only
Jews seemingly penalized for this aspiration? Jews have a human right to
their own state just as any other people do, Palestinians included.
As I said, there are also some Israelis who oppose even a two-state
solution with a demilitarized Palestinian state because they fear that
it might tolerate or be a harbor for further terrorism against a Jewish
state.
I understand these fears. But the bitter reality is that a single
state controlled by Israel, which they advocate, guarantees certain war
forever, and further isolation of the Jewish community in the world to
the extent that its future would be jeopardized.
Let me elaborate.
They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and
over and expecting a different result. If Israel were to not only
maintain the status quo, but go beyond that and tighten its control over
Gaza and the West Bank, as some in the current Netanyahu administration
have suggested — in effect creating a de facto single state — then what
reasonable expectation can we have that Hamas and their allies will lay
down their arms? It would mean constant war.
On top of that, Israel moving closer to a single state entirely under
its control would further rupture its relationship with the rest of the
world, including the United States. Support for Israel has declined
worldwide in the last few months, and this trend will only get worse if
the Israeli government continues to follow its current path.
I appreciate that so many Israelis cannot contemplate the possibility
of two states right now because they remain so traumatized and angry by
what Hamas did on October 7. The brutality, the viciousness, the sexual
assault, the imprisonment and abuse of hundreds of hostages. I’m of
course sympathetic to this point of view. I’m upset and angry, too.
We will never forget what happened on October 7. But even while we
carry the anguish in our hearts, we have to think ahead to the future,
the medium and long term, and how we can ensure that something like
October 7 never happens again. We cannot let anger or trauma determine
our actions and cloud our judgment.
A two-state solution may feel daunting, especially now, but I believe
it is the only realistic and sustainable solution — on the basis of
security, on the basis of prosperity, on the basis of fundamental human
rights and dignity.
But in order to achieve a two-state solution, the reality is that things must change.
Right now, there are four major obstacles standing in the way of two
states, and until they are removed from the equation, there will never
be peace in Israel and Gaza and the West Bank.
Those four major obstacles are:
Hamas, and the Palestinians who support and tolerate their evil ways.
Radical right-wing Israelis in government and society.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
I will explain each in detail.
The first major obstacle to peace is Hamas, and the Palestinians who support and tolerate their evil ways.
Hamas is for the destruction of Israel, and in past decades, it has
undermined any hope for peace at every turn. It was Hamas who began its
vicious campaign of suicide bombings against innocent Israelis to derail
the nascent peace process in Oslo. It was Hamas who assassinated more
moderate Palestinian political representatives in Gaza in 2007. It is
Hamas who has held Gaza under repressive, undemocratic rule for close to
two decades. And it is Hamas who has targeted those brave Gazans who
have spoken out against its actions or tried to bridge the divide
between Israelis and Palestinians.
Jewish Americans and Israelis alike have been appalled and hurt at
efforts to rebrand Hamas, which is designated by the United States as a
terrorist organization, as noble resistance or freedom fighters.
Attempts to excuse their horrific actions against both Israelis and
Palestinians are morally repugnant.
A permanent ceasefire, effective immediately, would only allow Hamas
to regroup and launch further attacks on Israeli civilians. There can
never be a two-state solution if Hamas has any significant power.
However, a temporary ceasefire, such as President Biden has proposed,
which would allow for the return of hostages and humanitarian relief
for suffering Palestinians, is quite different, and is something I
support. But any proposal that leaves Hamas with meaningful power is
unacceptable to me and most all Israelis.
It should go without saying that Hamas cannot have any role in a future Gaza if we are to achieve peace.
The same goes for the minority of Palestinians who support Hamas and
those who demonstrate other forms of extremism, even if they’re not
card-carrying members. The Gazans who ventured into Israeli territory on
October 7 to loot and pillage. The people in the West Bank who flooded
the streets and cheered from afar the cold-blooded killing of mothers
and children.
This is appalling behavior, and while it may fall short of terrorism,
it has no place in a peaceful future for Israel and Palestinians, and
it ought to be denounced by the Palestinian public and their leaders who
believe in a more sustainable future beyond the cycle of violent
revenge.
The second major obstacle to peace is radical right-wing Israelis in government and society.
The worst examples of this radicalism are Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Ministry of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir.
Minister Smotrich has in the past openly called for the subjugation
or forced displacement of all Palestinians in the West Bank. In the
current crisis, he has used inflammatory rhetoric and called for
punitive restrictions on Palestinian farmers in the West Bank during the
olive harvest. He has prevented the transfer of funds to the
Palestinian Authority, and he has opposed the provision of any
humanitarian assistance to Gaza, going so far as to stop agreed-upon
shipments of flour.
Minister Ben Gvir is no better. When he was a young man, he was
barred from Israeli military service for his extremist views. Last year,
in a move only intended to antagonize the Muslim population, he visited
the Temple Mount with his supporters as a brazen show of force towards
Palestinians. And during this current conflict, he has facilitated the
mass distribution of guns to far-right settlers, exacerbating
instability and fueling violence.
There is a nastiness to what Ministers Smotrich and Ben Gvir believe
and how they use their positions of authority and influence; an
eagerness to inflame and provoke that is profoundly irresponsible and
self-destructive.
In my conversations with Israeli leaders, I have urged them to do
more to clamp down on the unacceptable vigilante settler violence in the
West Bank, and I have supported the Biden administration’s efforts to
impose consequences for extremist settler violence. But the unfortunate
reality is that this violence is openly supported by Ministers Smotrich
and Ben Gvir, and as long as they hold their positions of power, no true
progress will be made.
While not equivalent, extremist Palestinians and extremist Israelis
seek the same goal: from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, they
aim to push the other from the land.
Ministers Smotrich and Ben Gvir may not say they want to kill all
Palestinians outright, but they are clear in their desire to displace
them from their homes and replace them with Israeli settlers.
This is also abhorrent. As long as these two hold their positions of
power, peace will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
The third major obstacle to peace is the President of the Palestinian
Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, who is beholden to his narrow political
interests, to the detriment of both the West Bank and Gaza.
Over the years, President Abbas has evaded the democratic process,
declining to hold elections for over a decade and failing to empower
future leadership. Despite his long tenure leading the Palestinian
Authority, he has achieved few of his self-proclaimed goals. The
Palestinian Authority remains corrupt and continues to incite
instability through the martyr payment system. Palestinians are no more
prosperous, no safer, and no freer than they were when Abbas first took
power. As a result, President Abbas has lost the trust of the
Palestinian people.
Furthermore, he is a terrible role model and spiritual leader. In the
past, he has participated in outright Holocaust denial, attempting to
justify Nazis’ actions. This embrace of antisemitism extended to his
refusal, for weeks, to condemn the loss of Israeli civilian life on
October 7. Should Abbas remain, the Palestinian people can have no
assurance that a Palestinian state would be able to ensure their safety
or prosperity. Nor can they have any belief that the government would be
free of corruption.
For there to be any hope of peace in the future, Abbas must step down
and be replaced by a new generation of Palestinian leaders who will
work towards attaining peace with a Jewish State. Otherwise, the West
Bank will continue to suffer, and Hamas — or some similarly extreme
organization — will continue to maintain a foothold in Gaza.
The Palestinian Authority under new leadership must undertake a
reform process and emerge as a revitalized PA that can viably serve as
the basis for a Palestinian State with the trust of the Palestinian
people.
The fourth major obstacle to peace is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, who has all too frequently bowed to the demands of
extremists like Ministers Smotrich and Ben Gvir, and the settlers in the
West Bank.
I have known Prime Minister Netanyahu for a long time. While we have
vehemently disagreed on many occasions, I will always respect his
extraordinary bravery for Israel on the battlefield as a younger man. I
believe in his heart his highest priority is the security of Israel.
However, I also believe Prime Minister Netanyahu has lost his way by
allowing his political survival to take precedence over the best
interests of Israel.
He has put himself in coalition with far-right extremists like
Ministers Smotrich and Ben Gvir, and as a result, he has been too
willing to tolerate the civilian toll in Gaza, which is pushing support
for Israel worldwide to historic lows. Israel cannot survive if it
becomes a pariah.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has also weakened Israel’s political and
moral fabric through his attempts to co-opt the judiciary. And he has
shown zero interest in doing the courageous and visionary work required
to pave the way for peace, even before this present conflict.
As a lifelong supporter of Israel, it has become clear to me:
The Netanyahu coalition no longer fits the needs of Israel after
October 7. The world has changed — radically — since then, and the
Israeli people are being stifled right now by a governing vision that is
stuck in the past.
Nobody expects Prime Minister Netanyahu to do the things that must be
done to break the cycle of violence, preserve Israel’s credibility on
the world stage, and work towards a two-state solution.
If he were to disavow Ministers Smotrich and Ben Gvir, and kick them
out of his governing coalition, that would be a real meaningful step
forward.
But regrettably, there is no reason to believe Prime Minister Netanyahu would do that.
He won’t disavow Ministers Smotrich and Ben Gvir and their calls for
Israelis to drive Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank. He won’t
commit to a military operation in Rafah that prioritizes protecting
civilian life. He won’t engage responsibly in discussions about a
“day-after” plan for Gaza, and a longer-term pathway to peace.
Hamas, and the Palestinians who support and tolerate their evil ways.
Radical right-wing Israelis in government and society.
President Abbas.
Prime Minister Netanyahu.
These are the four obstacles to peace, and if we fail to overcome
them, then Israel and the West Bank and Gaza will be trapped in the same
violent state of affairs they’ve experienced for the last 75 years.
These obstacles are not the same in their culpability for the present
state of affairs. But arguing over which is the worst stymies our
ability to achieve peace.
Given the complexity and gravity of this undertaking, many different groups have a responsibility to see it through.
The Palestinian people must reject Hamas and the extremism in their
midst. They know better than anybody how Hamas has used them as pawns,
how Hamas has tortured and punished Palestinians who seek peace.
Quite frankly, I haven’t heard enough Palestinian leaders express
anguish about Hamas and other extreme elements of Palestinian society. I
implore them to speak up now, even when it may be hardest. Because that
is the only true way to honor the lives of all those lost — by
transcending the enmity and bloodshed, and working together in good
faith for a better future.
Once Hamas is deprived of power, the Palestinians will be much freer
to choose a government they want and deserve. With the prospect of a
real two-state solution on the table, and for the first time, genuine
statehood for the Palestinian people, I believe they will be far more
likely to support more mainstream leaders committed to peace.
I think the same is true of the Israeli people. Call me an optimist,
but I believe that if the Israeli public is presented with a path to a
two-state solution that offers a chance at lasting peace and
coexistence, then most mainstream Israelis will moderate their views and
support it.
Part of that moderation must include rejecting right-wing zealots
like Ministers Smotrich and Ben Gvir, and the extremist Israeli settlers
in the West Bank. These people do not represent a majority of the
Israeli public, yet under Prime Minister Netanyahu’s watch, they have
had far too much influence.
All sides must reject “From the river to the sea” thinking — and I
believe they will if the prospects for peace and a two-state solution
are real.
Beyond the Israeli and Palestinian people and their leaders, there
are others who bear a serious responsibility to work towards a two-state
solution. Without them, it cannot succeed.
Middle Eastern powers like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates,
Egypt, Jordan and other mainstream Arab states can have immense power
and influence with the Palestinians. Working with the United States,
they must responsibly deploy their clout, their money and their
diplomacy to support a new demilitarized Palestinian state that rejects
terror and violence. I believe they have the leverage to do this with
the support of the majority of the Palestinian people, who want what any
other people want: peace, security and prosperity.
I believe there is enough strength in the Arab world to get President
Abbas to step down, and to support a gradual succession plan for
responsible Palestinian leaders to take his place. Hamas has so wrecked
society in Gaza that it will take the outside involvement of Arab
countries to help rebuild something better and more sustainable. It may
take some time to identify such leaders, but with the considerable
resources of the Arab world backing them, I believe these leaders can —
and will — emerge knowing that they have support.
The outlines of the deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel that were
reported before October 7 still make a great deal of sense, and can be
the catalyst for the creation of a viable Palestinian state. Saudi
Arabia and other Arab nations should continue to pursue normalization
with Israel, and this should be the foundation of a grand bargain in the
Middle East that will finally make meaningful Palestinian statehood a
reality.
For our part, the United States — the world’s superpower — must work
together with our allies to bring our immense diplomatic and financial
power to bear on this situation. We can be a partner to a grand bargain
in the Middle East by deepening our relationship with the Saudis and
other Arab nations to induce them to make a deal — but only if they
actively guide Palestinians toward a more peaceful future.
On the Israeli side, the US government should demand that Israel
conduct itself with a future two-state solution in mind. We should not
be forced into a position of unequivocally supporting the actions of an
Israeli government that includes bigots who reject the idea of a
Palestinian state.
Israel is a democracy.
Five months into this conflict, it is clear that Israelis need to take stock of the situation and ask: must we change course?
At this critical juncture, I believe a new election is the only way
to allow for a healthy and open decision-making process about the future
of Israel, at a time when so many Israelis have lost their confidence
in the vision and direction of their government.
I also believe a majority of the Israeli public will recognize the
need for change, and I believe that holding a new election once the war
starts to wind down would give Israelis an opportunity to express their
vision for the post-war future.
Of course, the United States cannot dictate the outcome of an
election, nor should we try. That is for the Israeli public to decide — a
public that I believe understands better than anybody that Israel
cannot hope to succeed as a pariah opposed by the rest of the world.
As a democracy, Israel has the right to choose its own leaders, and
we should let the chips fall where they may. But the important thing is
that Israelis are given a choice. There needs to be a fresh debate about
the future of Israel after October 7.
In my opinion, that is best accomplished by holding an election.
If Prime Minister Netanyahu’s current coalition remains in power
after the war begins to wind down, and continues to pursue dangerous and
inflammatory policies that test existing US standards for assistance,
then the United States will have no choice but to play a more active
role in shaping Israeli policy by using our leverage to change the
present course.
The United States’ bond with Israel is unbreakable, but if extremists
continue to unduly influence Israeli policy, then the Administration
should use the tools at its disposal to make sure our support for Israel
is aligned with our broader goal of achieving long-term peace and
stability in the region.
I believe this would make a lasting two-state solution more likely.
Now, I know there are many on both sides who question how we can discuss peace at a moment like this.
So many Gazans are displaced from their homes and struggling to meet
their most basic needs. Many are still burying and mourning their dead.
Entire families have been wiped out.
In Israel, everyone knows someone who was killed on October 7. So
many Israelis feel that people around the world have no respect for the
grief and rage unleashed by Hamas’s vicious attack.
So is there real hope for peace and a two-state solution?
In the face of this atrocity, who could blame even the most hopeful
among us for hardening their hearts, for giving up on the possibility of
peace, for giving in to hate?
I seek my inspiration in the example of leaders who have come before
us and worked for peace in the face of extreme circumstances.
Some of Israel’s greatest warriors and security experts have been
staunch advocates for peace because they understand better than anybody
that it is essential to Israel’s security.
David Ben-Gurion, Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak… all of them sought peace with the Palestinians.
On the Palestinian side, we don’t have to look back very far to see a
model of responsible leadership — Salam Fayyad, the former prime
minister of the Palestinian Authority, who was clear in his condemnation
of violence against Israelis.
And for the Arab leaders of today, may they find inspiration in Anwar
El-Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein bin Talal of Jordan, who had the
courage and vision to seek peace with Israel.
Before October 7, things were moving in the right direction. The
United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia both were on the path to
normalization with Israel, and with conditions that would greatly
benefit the lives of the Palestinian people. Many believe that Iran
motivated Hamas to disrupt this process, and indeed there have been
setbacks since October 7, but recent talks between Arab and American
leaders suggest the desire is stronger than ever now to find a path
forward. Arab leaders cannot lose their stomachs for peace now at this
critical inflection point. They must continue to pursue the path to
normalization of relations with Israel, and the US should use all of its
power and influence to bring them to the table and make them cooperate
constructively.
If my speaking out today has any effect, it will probably have
greater influence on the Israeli and Jewish side of things, but if this
conflict is to be resolved, we need comparable Palestinian and Arab
leaders to also speak responsibly to their people about the path forward
to peace.
Now is the time for courageous leadership.
After Israelis and Palestinians have experienced so much horror and
loss of life, to not have something meaningful come out of this war
would be doubly tragic.
History will look back on what we do here. Are we prepared together
to have the courage to make an all-out push to bring about peace, once
and for all? To bring to this conflict what the Reverend Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr. called the “fierce urgency of now” to end the cycles of
tragedy and pain?
I have always said when horrific things happen, some turn inwards and
let their grief consume them, while others light a candle and turn
their grief into power. They are able to see hope in the darkness.
In Scripture, we read about how God created the world from an
infinite void — that out of the greatest darkness can come the greatest
light. I hope and pray that from the brutal slaying of Israelis by
Hamas, and the harrowing civilian toll in Gaza, that a two-state
solution where Jews and Palestinians can live in peace will prevail.
I know I am not alone in this prayer.
There are right now Palestinians in Gaza, some of whom are still
pulling dead family members from the rubble, who are defying Hamas and
their murderous ideology and calling for a pathway to peace.
There are right now some families of the victims of October 7 who
have been calling for peace, asking their government to transcend the
cycle of bloodshed and revenge.
If they can find in their hearts a path to peace, then surely we can also.
From the ashes, may we light the candles that lead us to a better future for all.
This stripped to bare bones is a policy speech. Hold elections and if the extremists win, we live with it. Two states, as a solution, is offered with a demilitarized Palestinian State; without imposing the like upon Israel. Unfair and unbalanced, it nonetheless is the policy articulated. Neither state gets "river to the sea."
If Palestine is disarmed in perpetuity, there will need to be occupation police powers, which would involve Arab discipline, or there'd be failure. The Arab neighbors do not want a perpetual cauldron of dissatisfaction. They have their own populations --- to manage. To rule. There are nuances. The situation of Jerusalem and the holy sites of both religions, and others, being a glaring nuance. Some measures addressing this can be effected to deal with things fairly and without push and shove back and forth -- possibly Jerusalam as an international city under UN peacekeeping jurisdiction, for as long as needed.
Will it sell to the locals? Will Israelis vote for or against? Will permanent disarmament sell among Palestinians? Both sides would have to buy in and trust the process and promises which are today's thing.
Like it or love it, it is a policy position, and Schumer would not have given this speech without knowing support within his party. The other party? The naysayers because they see conflict as better than cohesion? Norm Coleman clutching his pearls; and blogger support, giving Norm an attaboy? Instituionalized naysaying:
On reflection, it was good to have put Coleman's disingenuous thing and Gary Gross' more honest items above, together. Coleman does name-calling. Polls and such motivate Schumer, he says. The Schumer speech focused upon two-state vs Greater Israel single state, with two particular cabinet ministers in the Netanyahu coalition in particular focus, along with Bibi's denial of a two state solution. Gary acknowledged this, and honestly disagreed. Coleman, weaseled a "stabs Israel in the back" multi paragraph writing which entirely sidestepped the whole issue of which Schumer patiently mad clear, Bibi's personal and cabinet extremism and rejection of a two state answer. Coleman lacked the balls to face the issue and try to argue against it, and hence chose to present nothing but smug crap and name calling.
Schumer was the proper person to enunciate the rationale for a two-state approach and to name names of those in the way of any lasting peace. Clearly he would not have been so explicit if he lacked backing in the White House, but Schumer saying the things needed saying was a more effective measure than if Biden or Harris or Blinken were to have given such a speech, and Schumer clearly was sincere in doing a duty.
Bernie, who's been vocal about Israeli intransigent hubris for a long term likewise would have had less impact if saying what Schumer said. Schumer deserves credit for saying that cleaning house in Israel is needed, else, he said it twice, that nation becomes viewed worldwide as an international pariah. Which is happening, where U.S. veto use in the UN Security Council on behalf of Israel unfortunately casts a pariah light upon our nation.
It is time for Bibi to hear and act. He may not call elections, but he should. He is in denial of truths in his sphere as much as Trump is in his. Trump will lose the next election and Bibi knows that he'd lose if he holds elections. Both nations need to embrace sanity and civilized ends and means.
That is a bottom line truth, and Senator Schumer emphatically saying "two state, and hold elections" was a welcomed step for most people aware of the Gaza situation where Israel's aim of fully disabling Hamas is accepted as generally sound, but where Israelis have moved in a cruel and brutal way beyond anything necessary for their ultimate aim to be met.
Saying, hold elections is not saying who should run, who should win. It is saying Bibi has a toxic flavored cabinet and needs to put that question to Israeli public debate.
Graham does something of a glide and slide over the question of what's the plan once the killing stops. Then, a clown show helps nobody, but is poisoned by election year electioneering. Simplistic rhetoric involving three amateurs. Two standing grim faced, one speaking stridently (and from a lectern so as not to look like a Sen. Britt kitchen clone, possibly). AIPAC, as always, in the background.
Some might think it was an inadvertent hot-mic moment. Some might see the wording as expressly intended to be something Netanyahu could not ignore, as to impact and choice of phrasing. Schumer said about the same thing, in exceptionally clear detail. A policy explanation is afoot. Biting the hand that feeds billions annually is questionable hubris.
With the post already long, and with all politics being local, it is worth noting that Minn. Stat. Secs. 3.226 and 16C.053 can be repealed should push come to shove; and Sen. Latz may have friends in Israel worth connecting with, given how things are being seen these days. Not that repeal now would be as easy as passage then, but Latz was a key sponsor, then. AIPAC strongly voiced then. Schumer and Biden strongly voiced now.
BDS is always on the table, as an Israeli concern, outside - in; vs other concerns, inside - out. Elections now is a reasonable suggestion for Israel to follow, offered to reasonable people within Israel. The plan after the killing ceases is a concern now, while the killing is ongoing.