E.J. Dionne commends Chuck Schumer for saying out loud what many of Israel’s friends are thinking. What Schumer said is that Israel should hold elections now.
Dionne defends this statement by noting that, according to polls, Netanyahu would be voted out of office if an election were held now. The same is probably true of Joe Biden, by the way.
In Israel, unlike the United States, elections can be held at any time. But that doesn’t mean they should be held just because the prime minister is behind in the polls.
It’s true, of course, that the situation in Israel today is exceptional. But the exceptional circumstances militate against holding an election now.
Wartime is not a good time to hold unscheduled elections. A country should be united during a war. Elections accentuate divisions and promote disunity.
Things might be different if deep divisions were plaguing Israel’s war effort. But that’s not the case. Israel has come together around its vital effort to crush Hamas. Towards that objection, Netanyahu has formed a coalition cabinet — a government of national unity.
Why disrupt in wartime what, for Israel, is an unusual degree of unity? The war is likely to be over some time this year. That will be soon enough to hold elections.
Accordingly, Schumer’s “advice” to hold elections now is badly misguided on the merits.
In addition, it is highly inappropriate. I agree with the Majority Leader that Netanyahu ought to go. Not because of the way he’s conducting the war — he’s doing fine on that front, in my view — but because of his failure to keep Israel secure from Hamas before the war.
Israel was not prepared for Hamas’ invasion and, although Netanyahu’s enemies in the national security establishment bear much of the blame for this, responsibility ultimately rests with the Prime Minister.
In addition, Netanyahu is partially responsible for Hamas’ ability to massacre Israelis. As Peter Berkowitz points out:
Netanyahu aimed to divide West Bank Palestinians ruled by the Palestinian Authority from Gaza Palestinians controlled by Hamas, while turning Hamas toward economic development. Instead, the government’s policy funded Hamas’ massive tunnel infrastructure, enormous weapons stockpiles, and monstrous plans to destroy Israel.
But whatever Schumer thinks of Netanyahu, and whether he’s right or wrong, it’s improper for high-level American politicians to tell Israel when to conduct elections. I agree this statement by Tom Cotton:
Chuck Schumer’s demand for new Israeli elections is inappropriate and offensive. Israel is a close ally and a healthy, vibrant democracy. The last thing Israel needs is the ‘foreign election interference’ that Democrats so often decry here.
I also agree with Mitch McConnell who said:
You can’t spend years hyperventilating about foreign interference in our democracy and then turn around and tell allies, particularly democratic allies, who their leader should be and when they should have elections. It’s just completely at variance with the way we typically operate in a foreign country, which is to deal with whatever government has been chosen in a democracy.
Criticism hasn’t just come from Republicans. Democrats John Fetterman and Jacky Rosen joined in, as well.
Schumer defended his comment, telling Dionne “we’re not determining who Israel should pick; we’re just asking that they get a right to choose when so many people are just upset with the direction of the present government in Israel.” It’s mighty big of Schumer not to tell Israelis whom to vote for. But telling them when they should hold elections is still interference with Israel’s democracy, as McConnell said.
Furthermore, Schumer is being disingenuous. He clearly wants Netanyahu out and expects that, if elections are held now, Netanyahu will lose. Thus, Schumer is trying to help engineer Netanyahu’s ouster. That’s close to unprecedented behavior towards an ally and totally unprecedented towards an ally at war.
Ironically, though, Schumer may be helping Netanyahu. That, at least, is the view of the man whose party would likely defeat Netanyahu’s if elections were held now.
Benny Gantz, leader of the opposition to Netanyahu, says that Schumer “erred in his remarks.” Gantz explained that “external intervention” in domestic affairs is “counter-productive and unacceptable.” (Emphasis added)
In sum, Schumer’s comment was inappropriate as a matter of diplomatic practice, misguided as a matter of substance, and more likely to have the opposite of its intended effect in Israel than to have its intended one.
Why did Schumer commit this trifecta of foreign policy malpractice? Your guess is as good as mine.
My guess is that Schumer is spooked by the widespread condemnation of Israel and the accompanying rise of anti-Semitism (including in his own party). He’s also spooked by the prospect of Joe Biden losing Muslim voters in Michigan and young voters nationally because of anger over the war in Gaza. Therefore, Schumer seeks what he supposes, mistakenly, is a safe harbor — advocating the election of a new Prime Minister.
In other words, Schumer probably said the quiet part out loud because he has lost his nerve. Fortunately, Israelis have not lost theirs.
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.