Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer delivered a famous speech in the well of the Senate on March 14 on Israel and the Palestinians. You can read the entire, unedited version here.
The speech has caused great introspection among Jews worldwide, as if Jews for their entire Pause: Eleven is in heat again; she wants me to give her sex. I'm not going to give her sex but I'm also not going to get her spayed. Yet. Unpause. existence as a people have not done enough of that. I just listened to a nytimes The Daily podcast devoted to this speech. I don't know if the host of The Daily is Jewish or if the NYT reporter who followed up Schumer's speech with an interview is Jewish but it is anguished and self-examining listening.
I am sure that you know of Schumer's speech and probably read some accounts of it. I will summarize the main points but only in this consideration of the speech from my non-Jewish, American, Democratic point of view, which is viz,
For me and for many Americans, Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu are one entity. It is as if Netanyahu has swallowed Israel whole. He has been prime minister so long that, old as I am, I cannot except with difficulty and a refresher course remember what Israel sans Netanyahu was--nor envision what it may be in the future. Schumer wants to separate Israel from Netanyahu. Me too. EASIER SAID THAN DONE AND IT'S NOT OUR PLACE TO SAY OR DO! IT'S THE ISRAELI PEOPLE WHO MUST SEPARATE THE TWO!
This confluence has inured to Israel's detriment for me and for many American Democrats. Netanyahu is an asshole, as my president says, an asshole who, in making himself one with the Jewish state has opened daylight between that state and the United States, and an asshole who is changing Israel from a liberal Jewish democracy to a right-wing theocratic Jewish state without an independent judiciary. My personal opinion on Israel changed to the point that in the year before October 7, I became disenchanted and disillusioned with America's umbilical cord connection with Israel and advocated cutting that cord.
At the most bedrock level of consideration I asked many times in print, how a state can be independent if after 75 years it is still dependent on another state, the U.S. for its survival?
And is a Jewish theocratic, only quasi-democratic, state still the state that the U.S. wishes to support with its aid, material and materiel?
So my top level objection to Schumer's speech is his acknowledgment of that life-or-death tie. Without U.S. support Israel would cease to exist. And I, until Oct. 7, did not want my country, the U.S., to support this metastasizing tumor that is the Israel-Netanyahu Jewish theocracy.
Schumer called for new elections in Israel--as if there haven't been enough elections in Israel in the last few years. Schumer called for new elections in Israel for the Israeli citizenry to replace Netanyahu.
Dude...
Schumer said he didn't want to be seen as interfering in Israel's internal affairs--Wait what?--which is why he wasn't calling on Netanyahu to resign.
The key fallacy to Schumer's argument is his conflation of Netanyahu's unpopularity as prime minister. Schumer wants Israelis to vote Netanyahu out of office when the war is over because of his conduct of the war and opposition to a two-state solution to the eternal Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, to Israelis, those are not the same issue. In a late December poll, only 15% of Israelis wanted Netanyahu to continue as prime minister after the war in Gaza ends. But in separate polls in Feb. 2024 nearly 66% support an invasion of Rafah, which President Biden and Sen. Schumer oppose (unless priority is given to Palestinian civilian lives) and 55% reject a Palestinian state. In short, Schumer wants Netanyahu replaced for all the wrong reasons from Israelis' point of view.
Schumer believes that an Israeli-controlled state from the River to the Sea "guarantees certain war forever".
"If Israel were to...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."
The fallacy there is in the belief that negotiations yield peace while total victory in war "guarantees certain war forever." That was the belief behind the World War I armistice, which merely gave Germany time to rearm and start World War II. That was the belief behind Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's peace at any cost agreements with Hitler which enslaved Czechoslovakia and led to the subjugation of all of Central and Eastern Europe. War until unconditional surrender is forced on the opponent led to peace in the American Civil War, in World War II in Europe and in Japan.
And what Schumer's position on continued aid to Israel would be if Netanyahu were returned to power by Israelis, Schumer did not explicitly say. He did implicitly say that American moral support and material aid would be jeopardized.
Schumer said that if Netanyahu were to continue in power (as voted by Israeli citizens) then the U.S. would have no other recourse but to use its "tools" of influence. Which means money, aid military and civil. But he doesn't want to interfere!
So my top level disagreement was confirmed rather than dispelled. All others are secondary to me but for the record:
Hamas' goal in the October 7 attack was not to drive Israel into the sea, it was to drive a wedge between Israel and other Arab states inching toward peace with Israel, and between the U.S. and Israel.
"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."
"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…"
"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...Many believe that Iran motivated Hamas to disrupt this process..."
"Hamas...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."
Schumer called for a two-state solution--but a "demilitarized" Palestinian state. I opposed, post-Oct. 7, two states but a demilitarized Palestine is a horse of a different color! Schumer did not say how he proposed to make an independent Palestine demilitarized without Israel policing it, which would make it not quite independent, but perhaps the international community could.
There were a couple of other points of interest mainly to me and my cogitations. Democracy is not the answer:
"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.
Hamas received 44% of the vote in the 2006 Palestinian elections. In December, 2023, two months after Oct. 7, a poll conducted in Gaza showed popular support for Hamas at 42%--up from 38% in September, 2023.
Yet, Schumer says, "Palestinian civilians do not deserve to suffer for the sins of Hamas..." Well, 42% of them DO.
"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."
Schumer is thinking quite directly and correctly of Hitler's ascension in Germany by popular vote. Democracy is not a one-size fits-all solution to all the world's problems. I agree.
.svg/800px-Coat_of_arms_of_Palestine_(alternative).svg.png)
Coat of Arms Palestine Nazi insignia
Yet, Schumer places faith in democracy:
"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.
"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..."
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the "mainstream Arab state" of Saudi Arabia!
"The United States...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."
"Deepening our relationship" with the homeland of 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers!
"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."
He wants a Palestine free of its democratically elected leadership; he wants an Israel free of its democratically elected leadership. Other than that his wants are realistic.
Another point,
"Second, Jews have a right to their own state."
No, they don't! No people do. Schumer is talking out his ass and using that naturally fertilized source to elevate his commitment to a Jewish state to the rarefied air of Immutable Truths.
Where did this fakakta notion of statehood as a right come from? Schumer answers,
"...a national homeland for all peoples of the world has been the driving goal of the anticolonial movement of the last century..."
Oh, from the last century! You mean mid-20th century to today? Yeah, that's worked out well, huh. Give everybody who wants their own state a state and that'd be the end of war! NOT.
"...Jews have a human right to their own state just as any other people do, Palestinians included."
Oh, it's a human right now! Not just a man-made right of disturbed thought from the 20th century, it's right up there with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! I see. NO.
Statehood is not a right, not man-made, certainly not an eternal human right. You have to fight for statehood and, coming full circle now, if Israel can't prevail in that fight alone then it is not entitled to a state and would not be in any meaning of the word "independent" since its survival, admitted by Schumer, depended on another state, the United States.
This talk of rights: What is undisputed, without question, is that Americans have the right to choose which people, if any people, to support in their quest for statehood with our tax dollars and our military hardware. Schumer engages in a puerile, feel-good equivalence of non-existence rights. Not all peoples are created equal in American eyes for our, American, financial and military support. We choose who, if any people to support in that other people's fight for the survival of their own state, we the American people choose. And I, as one American, choose to support the Jewish people for a homeland, and that homeland is in, now and forever, Israel.
Israeli society is as united as it has been recently in this existential fight against Hamas Nazis. I choose to support Israel at this time.
When this war ends with the inevitable Israeli victory then I will reassess whether continued support for Israel-Netanyahu is consistent with America's values. But under no circumstances do I choose to let Israel be destroyed by Hamas Nazis.
And for the same reasons I choose against a state for the Palestinian people. (If it can be demilitarized, if Schumer, et al can present a detailed workable plan, mebbe.)
