Wednesday, March 20, 2024

NYT Report: Schumer in retrospect over the "Time for Israel to hold elections" speech. (Item carried by Seattle Times, free of the NYT paywall.)


‘Part of my core’: How Schumer decided to speak out against Netanyahu -- The New York Times

Quoting, mid-item:

His main purpose, he said, “was to say you can still love Israel and feel strongly about Israel and totally disagree with Bibi Netanyahu and the policies of Israel.”

The blowback from Republicans has been swift and vicious. Schumer’s speech was still reverberating Monday night, when former President Donald Trump cited it in an interview, saying that “any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion. They hate everything about Israel, and they should be ashamed of themselves, because Israel will be destroyed.”

[...] Republicans and even some Democrats accused him of inappropriately interfering in another country’s elections. The Republican Jewish Coalition said that “the most powerful Democrat in Congress knifed the Jewish state in the back.” And some on the left said he had not gone far enough in condemning Israel’s conduct in the war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

[...] But he insists it was his deep Jewish faith — and the moral imperative he feels to stand up for Jews and for Israel — that led him to speak out against Netanyahu.

[...] Schumer said he spent hours after his speech talking with conservative Jewish constituencies whose members were enraged. On Tuesday he addressed a broad spectrum of Jewish American leaders, facilitated by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, by Zoom. In a statement after the meeting, the group said “our membership continue to have deep reservations about Senator Schumer’s speech.”

In the interview, Schumer was characteristically more eager to recount the kudos he received. “Did you see Nancy today?” he said of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who in a CNN appearance Sunday called his speech an “act of courage.” He directed an aide to share a letter he received from Ehud Olmert, a former Israeli prime minister, that called him “honest and ready to step forward and say what needs to be said.”

It was a long time coming. Schumer said he spent about two months and 10 drafts trying to perfect a 44-minute address he knew would have to toe a delicate line. He did not merely want to push for policy changes in Israel’s offensive in Gaza without calling out Netanyahu, whom he called “the fount of the problems.”

“To just go for policy changes — I thought it wouldn’t pierce; it wouldn’t do anything,” he said.

Worried that Netanyahu’s leadership was risking Israel’s global reputation and its backing from the United States, Schumer pondered how far he could go.

What the man said had to be said. Netanyahu, without protest, allowed himself to be carried away by intolerable extremists - named by him into key cabinet posts in order to gain a coalition allowing him to remain in power, damn the consequences.

And - consequences for the U.S. in continuing to arm the Hamas eradication effort were consequences Netanyahu continues to insufficiently care about, despite our nation's history of supporting his young nation's war activity. Arming the thing necessarily gives us a say, which Netanyahu blows off. Israel needs to vote. If putting the same people back via election results, bless them and form U.S. policy based on the result. Flushing Netanyahu and crew being the other possible election result, where U.S. policy based on the result would likely differ.

The speech was absolutely correct, and necessary, and it had to be Schumer saying what needed saying. Any lesser figure would have been with lesser impact.

A strong worldwide impact was needed; one Netanyahu would hear, even if in continued denial. And, again eradication of Hamas is not a bad goal, but there are multiple ways and means that could have been used with that same goal in mind.

What was done will need its day of judgments, after Israel's IDF stops shooting.

And it should be an all encompassing day of judgments, including examining things suggested as relevant for close scrutiny via this "Trading on Terror?" academic study. Perhaps more on that in a later post.

In the middle of the report SeattleTimes included these links:

More on Hamas-Israel