Post New

So, Chuck Schumer lit into Netanyahu the other day - criticizing him directly, calling for Israel to hold new elections and replace him, etc. A takedown even more remarkable given that it was delivered by the highest-ranking Jewish official in the U.S. government and generally a staunch supporter of Israel.

But I'm still trying to figure out what the purpose of the speech actually was. I mean, ostensibly it's to try to change Israel's direction in Gaza - but it's not going to do that at all. It's almost certainly not going to change anything about how Israel is prosecuting the conflict with Hamas, because Israeli public opinion is solidly behind what Netanyahu is doing (which is how he's able to keep his unity war government together). Anyone who got elected in his place would certainly follow much the same approach to the fight. I suppose there might be situations where it's marginally useful to try to create the misimpression that Israel's attacks in Gaza are because of Netanyahu personally (or his coalition), and not because that's where Israeli public opinion is - but I can't think of too many, and nothing worth really doing this.

And while it's not likely to change Israel's policy or tactics, it's also not likely to have any of the effects on Netanyahu that Schumer seems to want. Netanyahu's already a political dead duck - 10/7 happened on his watch, the public already hates him (more or less), and there's enormous public support for new elections to get him out. So Schumer's criticism doesn't make it any more likely that he'll lose the next election. And in fact, there's a pretty good argument that this just hands Netanyahu the one lifeline he might be able to use to save himself, which is to run against global interference in Israel's security needs.

The only other thing I can think of is that it's a sop to parts of the Democratic base - a way to be very critical without criticizing Israel, and a way to take partial credit for something that faction wants that's going to happen anyway. Netanyahu is almost certainly going to lose the next election anyway. Why not take a swing at him and claim credit for him getting defeated? The main downside to that is that Netanyahu simply might not call an election until well after the Gaza conflict has shifted out of the active phase, which undermines the benefit of claiming that Democrats helped push him out and makes Schumer look weaker for having been ignored.

The only other thing I can think of is that it's a sop to parts of the Democratic base - a way to be very critical without criticizing Israel, and a way to take partial credit for something that faction wants that's going to happen anyway.

Yes. Schumer said what Biden probably wants to say, but can't, for fear of losing even more support from those democrats and undecideds already very critical of Israel.

Yup. Schumer's speech won't change opinions of Israelis in the immediate term, they will remain supportive of efforts that appear to further cripple Hamas' ability to replicate the October attack.

Yup. It is worthwhile to attempt laying some of the blame for the attack directly on Netanyahu. Regardless of whether Israelis BELIEVE it, the facts seem to support this argument. Within a month of the attacks, it became apparent Israeli intelligence had not just a hint that something bad was going to go down, they had a FORTY PAGE tactical summary itemizing the scope and breadth of the plan AND IGNORED IT, assuming it was wishful thinking and Hamas forces could never pull off something that complex. This despite the fact that there seemed to be a slowdown in rocket attacks over the past 12-18 months which in hindsight make it appear like Hamas forces were stockpiling munitions rather than using them up on a FIFO basis as they could obtain them.

Yup. It's not likely to alter Netanyahu's political arc. While Israelis "support" immediate efforts to hit Hamas, there does seem to be a majority concensus that Netanyahu failed in the ONE thing he claimed to be able to do better than any other alternative leader -- keep Israel "safe." This failure, combined with other anti-democratic initiatives he has pushed to placate his extreme right wing base make him EXTREMELY unpopular and unlikely to win re-election unless the voting occurs during another attack.

Yup. Schumer's speech is likely directed domestically to parts of the Democratic base. On one hand, most Americans of any political persuasion have a comically simplistic view of American power and influence and the willingness of foreign nations to jump when and where America tells them. On the other, American politicians have an equally child-like understanding of the same dynamics and encourage it by acting as though our IMMENSE power requires nuance in anything any politician says. This tends to stifle debate and suppress recognition of realities, both the realities of events happening in the world and their causes and the realities about America's ability to control other nations' actions.

I think Schumer's speech cuts through some of that self-delusion by first signaling to Americans who want ZERO criticism of Israel that no nation should be sacrosanct and immune from criticism. It also signals to simpletons that this situation is incredibly complicated and requires the ability to criticize countries we are actively supporting. The "correct" policy is unlikely to emerge from a mindset that tolerates no critique. Finally, it cuts through some of the willful suspension of disbelief and cuts to the chase that Netanyahu is not a leader with the appropriate policies and leadership skills to solve the long term problem being worsened by Israel's current response to the October attacks. His policies are fatally flawed in the judicial, social, military and security realms and will recursively worsen every problem Israel faces.

In some sense, Schumer's speech was directed at the entire American population as an attempt to cut through the BS and trigger a more realistic debate about how to address the Gaza nightmare.


WTH

As I wrote before - Bibi's ouster from office will be used by WarMonger Mules on the Left to show some of the base that things have changed.

Eventually my hope is that the base doesn't just settle for a "sop". And then - things get interesting and more American soldiers and civilians get to test the "hey I didn't die for Israeli purposes" feature on their new I-phone.

But either way, nice to see 'Murica openly lecture a democratic country on its political affairs.

I love it.

Can't call s-hole countries, s-hole countries. But a Corporatist Senator can tell another democratic nation what to do.

I don't like the Mule Status of many on the Left but then again many on the Right are Mules too-----only their "pro life" gets mocked in Israel and their Republican Party -doesn't get 70% of a certain vote in America.

But between Obama first and now Biden and Schumer - I love that America can do what the hell it wants.

(Hopefully they don't go FDR on us. Would have to hide Japanese Americans, and High Tech visa immigrants.)

I'd help a few of them. "Wilton's List"

I think Schumer's speech cuts through some of that self-delusion by first signaling to Americans who want ZERO criticism of Israel that no nation should be sacrosanct and immune from criticism. It also signals to simpletons that this situation is incredibly complicated and requires the ability to criticize countries we are actively supporting. The "correct" policy is unlikely to emerge from a mindset that tolerates no critique. Finally, it cuts through some of the willful suspension of disbelief and cuts to the chase that Netanyahu is not a leader with the appropriate policies and leadership skills to solve the long term problem being worsened by Israel's current response to the October attacks. His policies are fatally flawed in the judicial, social, military and security realms and will recursively worsen every problem Israel faces.

In some sense, Schumer's speech was directed at the entire American population as an attempt to cut through the BS and trigger a more realistic debate about how to address the Gaza nightmare.

But see...I don't think it does any of that.

Schumer calls for new elections and getting rid of the Netanyahu coalition. Which, fine - but nearly all of Netanyahu's policies have majority support among Israelis. Arguably, if anything Netanyahu's perhaps a bit more moderate than median Israeli opinion these days. As I quoted over on TMF on the subject:

As the Israeli journalist Amit Segal observes, “There is a significant disparity between Israel’s leadership and its citizens — but it’s the opposite of what people in Washington assume.” The policies of Israel’s war cabinet are restrained relative to public opinion. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s foreign-policy instincts are moderate by Israeli standards. If “the Israeli people” somehow controlled the war in Gaza directly, it might be even more devastating.

https://archive.is/fXoQ5#selection-767.0-779.105

I think Schumer maintains the willful suspension of disbelief in the U.S. that what's happening is an outcome specific to the Netanyahu Administration, and not legitimately a reflection of what the majority of the Israeli electorate wants. Replacing Netanyahu isn't going to result in a permanent ceasefire or bring the two-state solution back from the dead. It's weird that Schumer gave a speech that made it seem like it might.

“There is a significant disparity between Israel’s leadership and its citizens — but it’s the opposite of what people in Washington assume.” The policies of Israel’s war cabinet are restrained relative to public opinion. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s foreign-policy instincts are moderate by Israeli standards. If “the Israeli people” somehow controlled the war in Gaza directly, it might be even more devastating.

----------------------

I had not seen this. I don't follow Israeli politics from an Israeli-domestic perspective so my exposure is filtered by what hits the news here in the US. That exposure over the last year or two implied that Netanyahu was continuing to tack to the hard right and was alienating the majority of Israelis, to the point where he was likely to lose re-election. I can imagine the current state within Israel being one where the population is extremely angry due to the attacks and want Hamas wiped out via methods more severe than Netanyahu is pursuing as he eyes Israel's entire national security picture. On the other hand, that public inclination could be distinct from Israelis wanting Netanyahu to retain power and continue pursuing other changes that are highly unpopular (like crippling the power of the Israeli Supreme Court).

Stated more succinctly, it's possible for Netanyahu to be more moderate on immediate tactics for dealing with Hamas than the Israeli public while still being hard right of the majority on everything else, driving them to want him out of power. For example, in the immediate term, maybe Israelis want Gaza leveled to a pile of cement dust while Netanyahu is holding back from that (somewhat). On the other hand, Netanyahu and far-right conservatives seem to be pushing for MORE settlements in occupied territories, a key stimulant in the cycle of violence, while active support for such settlements is a minority of Israelis.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-settlements-hama...

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/03/08/th...

According to the above Pew report, 42% of Israelis think settlements HELP security, 30% think they HURT security and 25% think they have no impact either way. There are different ways of spinning how the 25% bloc is mapped to a simpler metric of support or oppose. It could be that the 25% who are "neutral" don't lean on that issue either way when voting and the 42% in favor push for more settlements without any political price.


WTH

But I'm still trying to figure out what the purpose of the speech actually was.

I saw the speech as directed to the US audience and made to help shore up Biden's recent criticisms of Netanyahu. It's not geared for internal Israeli politics. So on that premise it doesn't hurt Biden with US Jews, who aren't enchanted with Netanyahu anyway, and it will help with pro-Palestine progressives (youth seems to be more pro-Palestine), and some US Jews seem to be pro-Palestine. It looks like trying to spur N calling elections to pave the way for a cease fire and talks with a two state solution to me.

That exposure over the last year or two implied that Netanyahu was continuing to tack to the hard right and was alienating the majority of Israelis, to the point where he was likely to lose re-election. I can imagine the current state within Israel being one where the population is extremely angry due to the attacks and want Hamas wiped out via methods more severe than Netanyahu is pursuing as he eyes Israel's entire national security picture. On the other hand, that public inclination could be distinct from Israelis wanting Netanyahu to retain power and continue pursuing other changes that are highly unpopular (like crippling the power of the Israeli Supreme Court).

To some extent, yes - but not so much on the points that we in the U.S. seem to care most about.

Certainly he outraged the electorate with his move on the Supreme Court. His support of the ultra-orthodox - and the privileges they hold in Israeli society - certainly rankles the centrist part of the electorate (to say nothing of the left). Those actions certainly left him vulnerable in any upcoming elections.

But even before 10/7, the Israeli electorate had soured on Palestinians having their own state. This Pew note is from the end of September, scant weeks before the attack - they found barely a third of Israelis thought that the two states could exist in peace together (down from an even split ten years ago):

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/26...

Whether the two-state solution was potentially revivable before the attacks, after the attacks it's dead. Now, most Israelis (by more than two-to-one) oppose Israel agreeing even in principle to the establishment of an independent demilitarized Palestinian state. A majority of Israelis think a second state would result in terrorism being the same or worse than it is now. And not only does a big majority support fighting against Hamas in Gaza, but also about two to one want Israel to refuse to allow humanitarian aid into the area.

https://en.idi.org.il/articles/52976

So while a new government might abandon the Supreme Court push, and might make the Haredi join the army, they're not likely to make any real changes in how they handle the conflict with the Palestinians. Which, presumably, is what Schumer was trying to achieve.

It looks like trying to spur N calling elections to pave the way for a cease fire and talks with a two state solution to me.

Then it's only going to lead to disappointment. Netanyahu's replacement is no more likely to implement a cease fire or resume talks on a two state solution than he is. The Israeli voters are dead set against those things. They won't support a cease fire (unless Hamas capitulates, which they won't), and they are more opposed to a two state solution than ever.

Biden’s Plan for Resolving the Conflict On the Basis of the Two-State Formula

The formula of “two states for two peoples” has been on the Israeli agenda to some degree or another for many years. After several years in which it seemed to have lost some of its prominence, this idea has recently returned to center stage. We therefore asked our respondents: “President Biden has repeatedly stated that the large-scale assistance Israel is receiving from the United States is dependent on progress toward a fundamental solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on the basis of the two-states-for-two-peoples formula. In your opinion, after the war, should Israel agree or not agree to pursue this direction?” We found that a majority of Jews think that Israel should not agree to take this course, while a majority of Arabs are in favor of it.

A breakdown by political orientation in the Jewish sample reveals that only on the Left is there a majority (75%) who support making progress toward a two-state solution to the conflict in return for American assistance, as part of the plan put forward by President Biden. In the Center, this course of action is supported by a large minority (45%), and on the Right, only by a small minority (21%).

me; i have only one hand working right now

https://en.idi.org.il/articles/51746

But I'm still trying to figure out what the purpose of the speech actually was

It’s performance art for the “uncommitted” voters in Dearborn, Michigan. Shows you how the Biden campaign feels about Michigan right now.

most people agree that schumer's criticism of bebe is likely to have little effect, but many feel his frustration.
at best, it may be biden sending a message that the u.s. will stop redrawing 'red lines'.
but i applaud schumer and sanders nonetheless because

A. bebe is a corrupt convicted criminal that, more than any other player, needs to extend this war to stay in power.

B. palestine will never win the global propaganda war. about 100 children die EACH DAY in 4 months of gaza conflict. israel will say they were terrorists and\or Hamas welcomes this, but israel is the party actually committing the act. what gets mainstream media headlines?...any hostage that IDF hasn't accidentally killed.
most arab nations see palestine as irrelevant, or an expendable tool as their business interests are on hold due to the conflict.

C. the u.s. should immediately stop sending funds to a rich country that commits war crimes against the poorest civilians on the planet. israel is not ukraine, so let them spend their own resources!
its likely the u.s. will defend isreal against war crimes to shield its own complicity, but at least this action does not interfere with true u.s. security interests in the region.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.