In a situation unparalleled in the Senate, both Democrats and Republicans found themselves sharing a common stance. One could feel, as Chuck Schumer commenaced his address to the House on Thursday morning, an inference that this would be one defining speech that might go down as a signature event in his career.
The 73-year-old Senate majority leader’s admonition for fresh elections in Israel, along with his assertion that PM Binyamin Netanyahu had strayed off-course by prioritizing his political existence over Israel’s benefit, was a public airing of a debate that, in Democratic corners, has evolved from whispers to more overt articulations of unease, as the horrors kept mounting in Gaza.
Just the week before, on the heels of President Biden’s State of the Union address, which quelled apprehensions in the Democrats regarding Biden’s ability to lead the party through the tough challenges of the upcoming election, Schumer had played the enthusiastic supporter in the House.
Even as the buoyant audience’s applause waned, Schumer’s voice could be heard reverberating across the room, urging his party members for one final rallying cry of “Four More Years”. It failed to catch on as envisaged, as the President’s hour-long speech had understandably worn out some of its energy. However, amid the congratulatory adulation, President Biden mentioned on open mic that he had advised Netanyahu that it was high time for some serious discussions.
Meanwhile, over 100,000 protest votes in the Michigan primary reflected the widespread disapproval of President Biden’s handling of the Israel-Gaza conflict. This growing discontent amongst the crucial Democratic vote bank potentially puts his chances at risk in the November election.
In light of this, Schumer, as the senior-most Jewish elected representative in the United States, chose the same day that the President was set to garner support in Michigan to voice a blistering criticism, spanning forty minutes or so, of both Hamas and the “radical right-wing Israelis” in the government and society.
The finance minister Bezalel Smotrich and the nation’s security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir were singled out as epitomes of “intense radicalism”. According to the speaker, Smotrich constantly advocated for the imposition and relocation of Palestinians in the West Bank. He used fiery discourse in the midst of the current crisis to suggest harsh restrictions on Palestinian agriculturists during the olive harvest in the West Bank while steadfastly refusing any form of humanitarian intervention.
In terms of representing not just his own beliefs but those of the largely unheard moderate Jewish-American population, the speaker expressed their falling out of favour with the power dynamics in Gaza. Painted as a character from a bygone political era, Netanyahu was depicted as a relic whose relevance collapsed with the October 7th Hamas incursion into Israel.
Despite having been at odds on numerous matters, the speaker appreciated Netanyahu’s gallant military service to Israel during his youth. In Netanyahu’s heart, the speaker believed, Israel’s security held the highest priority. Nevertheless, he argued that the prime minister had veered off course due to his focus on his own political survival superseding what’s best for Israel. By aligning himself with extreme right-wing leaders like minister Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, Netanyahu was allegedly all too willing to dismiss the civilian casualties in Gaza, which were pushing worldwide support for Israel to historical lows. The speaker argued that Israel’s survival would be at stake if it were to become a global outcast.
Schumer’s comments rapidly spread and were met with both high praise and strong reproach. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell was among the local critics who argued to the assembly that it is “outrageous and hypocritical for Americans to fulminate about meddling in our own democracy while advocating for the ousting of Israel’s democratically elected leader. It is an unprecedented move.”
Indeed, such an unprecedented scenario has thrown a spotlight on the debate on how president Biden should best chart a course towards halting the five-month-long string of fatalities, with no progress in sight.