Great. Franklin Roosevelt felt so strongly horses shouldn't be changed in wartime midstream that he ran for unprecedented third and fourth terms, yet that's what Schumer wants Israel to do. What Schumer proposes is far worse than a change in president during World War II, for Netanyahu is much more directly involved in the conduct of the war than Roosevelt was. And, given the fractious Israeli politics, an election would be bitter, disruptive, and likely to politicize the conduct of the war and the terms of peace. Jim Dueholm
Schumer has been observing the Democratic turn against Israel since Obama began it. He has been conspicuously quiet. In 2015 when the rubber hit the road as Obama sold out the region to Iran, Schumer was extraordinarily quiet. He quietly voted against it but made no attempt to persuade anyone else. No doubt he worked it out with the White House which didn't need his yes vote. Over the next 6 years he has said next to nothing publicly. He opposed Trump's moving the embassy even though Israel's supporters have been demanding information decades. After October 7 he spoke at the large DC rally in November but his speech was a whine that the left shouldn't regard Jews as white but as fellow victims. Nothing defending Israel's just war. Now he's thought it over and made his decision. The self proclaimed "Guardian of Israel" is a Democrat first and foremost even when Israel faces an existential threat. He is a traitor. A liar. A hypocrite and a skunk. And he will never live it down.
Moreover, the "many people [who] are just upset with the direction of the present government in Israel" are mostly Americans, not Israelis (unless one supposes that Haaretz represents a significant share of Israeli public opinion).
Great. Franklin Roosevelt felt so strongly horses shouldn't be changed in wartime midstream that he ran for unprecedented third and fourth terms, yet that's what Schumer wants Israel to do. What Schumer proposes is far worse than a change in president during World War II, for Netanyahu is much more directly involved in the conduct of the war than Roosevelt was. And, given the fractious Israeli politics, an election would be bitter, disruptive, and likely to politicize the conduct of the war and the terms of peace. Jim Dueholm
Schumer has been observing the Democratic turn against Israel since Obama began it. He has been conspicuously quiet. In 2015 when the rubber hit the road as Obama sold out the region to Iran, Schumer was extraordinarily quiet. He quietly voted against it but made no attempt to persuade anyone else. No doubt he worked it out with the White House which didn't need his yes vote. Over the next 6 years he has said next to nothing publicly. He opposed Trump's moving the embassy even though Israel's supporters have been demanding information decades. After October 7 he spoke at the large DC rally in November but his speech was a whine that the left shouldn't regard Jews as white but as fellow victims. Nothing defending Israel's just war. Now he's thought it over and made his decision. The self proclaimed "Guardian of Israel" is a Democrat first and foremost even when Israel faces an existential threat. He is a traitor. A liar. A hypocrite and a skunk. And he will never live it down.
Moreover, the "many people [who] are just upset with the direction of the present government in Israel" are mostly Americans, not Israelis (unless one supposes that Haaretz represents a significant share of Israeli public opinion).