Has Chuck Schumer EVER Criticized Israel or its Leadership in the Way He Just Unloaded on Obama?

-

chuckschumer.jpgSenator Chuck Schumer may have just lost any shot at succeeding Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader if the Nevada Senator stumbles in the upcoming tough 2010 challenge he is facing.
Politico‘s Ben Smith shares word of a very harsh critique that Schumer publicly shared with a conservative Jewish show today of Obama’s Middle East policy.
Schumer’s screed gets to the edge of sounding as if he is more a Senator working in the Knesset than working in the United States Senate.
This is the 2nd time I know of that Schumer has publicly crossed the line when it came to zealously blaming his own government and colleagues in delicate matters of US-Israel-Palestine policy.
During the third of three major efforts of the George W. Bush administration to get the recess appointed US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton confirmed in the US Senate, Senator Schumer launched a passionate personal campaign to help Bolton succeed.
Schumer called many Democratic Senate colleagues and bluntly said, “A vote against John Bolton is a vote against Israel.”
Senator Christopher Dodd finally challenged Schumer’s advocacy for Bolton and this statement in a meeting of the weekly Democratic Senate Caucus at the time — and put an end to Schumer’s campaign.
What Schumer was distorting was that every administration, Republican and Democrat, had in the past been a good friend of Israel. Bolton represented the face of Jesse Helms-inspired pugnacious American nationalism largely disdainful of international institutions and engagement, and it was well within the latitude of the United States Senate to reject Bolton, or in this case filibuster him, on numerous grounds without having the Israel card pulled.
Schumer has an Israel blind spot.
From Ben Smith’s entry today:

New York Senator Chuck Schumer harshly criticized the Obama Administration’s attempts to exert pressure on Israel today, making him the highest-ranking Democrat to object to Obama’s policies in such blunt terms.
Schumer, along with a majority of members of the House and Senate, signed on to letters politely suggesting the U.S. keep its disagreements with Israel private, a tacit objection to the administration’s very public rebuke of the Jewish State over construction in Jerusalem last month.
But Schumer dramatically sharpened his tone on the politically conservative Jewish Nachum Segal Show today, calling the White House stance to date “counter-productive” and describing his own threat to “blast” the Administration had the State Department not backed down from its “terrible” tough talk toward Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Schumer, a hawkish ally of Israel since his days as a Brooklyn Congressman, described “a battle going on inside the administration” over Middle East policy.
“This has to stop,” he said of the administration’s policy of publicly pressuring Israel to end construction in Jerusalem.
“I told the President, I told Rahm Emanuel and others in the administration that I thought the policy they took to try to bring about negotiations is counter-productive, because when you give the Palestinians hope that the United States will do its negotiating for them, they are not going to sit down and talk,” Schumer told Segal. “Palestinians don’t really believe in a state of Israel. They, unlike a majority of Israelis, who have come to the conclusion that they can live with a two-state solution to be determined by the parties, the majority of Palestinians are still very reluctant, and they need to be pushed to get there.

Note to Senator Schumer: you have certainly unloaded a lot of blame on the White House today. I have done a quick lexis and Thomas search and have been unable to find a single instance in which you criticized the behavior of the Israeli government at any time on any issue.
If we are wrong, we would very much like to be corrected. Please let us know.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

108 comments on “Has Chuck Schumer EVER Criticized Israel or its Leadership in the Way He Just Unloaded on Obama?

  1. mike says:

    he is a jew. What is it that has you questioning his actions?

    Reply

  2. Joe says:

    I agree fully with you. Well said!

    Reply

  3. Expose_Cafr says:

    I am a democrat, my representative Feinstein, a dual US/ISRAEL citizen, does not represent me. Writing to such a representative just about feels like talking to the enemy at this point. I was natural born here in the US, I served in the USAF, and I don’t have the security clearance she does. But one big difference is she is breaking her oath of office with the gun grabbing anti-2nd amendment, ticking away at it along with other conspirators, disentegrating the rule of law on a daily 2.5 hour basis.
    Meanwhile the US gives Israel money, meanwhile people in our own country are going to hell in a handbasket created by these banksters who still along with their government enablers are not in Ft Leavenworth Kansas, in the basement lockup, level 999.

    These oath breaking scum have destroyed the rule of law and spied on use for monetary gain, and YET they still have access to our vaults, secrets, networks. As a natural born citizen, If I were given power to clean this mess, first thing first, DUAL Citizens will no longer serve as Senators. In fact these two hat wearing scum need to make a choice, HERE serving the people or there… living in your other country!

    Cause the road they got us on is Civil War 2.0 (Special Electronic Version)

    One might also look at all the big picture / gate keepers. The MONETARY SYSTEM (teh Fed) IS CONTROLLED BY NON US CITIZENS, How is it the Senate won’t obey their oaths and regulate the monetary system. Want to talk Hollywood? Want to talk the broadcast spectrum? Want to talk DHS (which is in 100% opposition to the US CONSTITUTION FOR the United States), want to talk The Conspiracty is that everywhere you look these logan act breakers are decimating “the people”

    By introjecting the word “Jew” the automaic defense is to call people anti-sematic, the fact that we are here is enough to give evidence of conspiracy. LOOK AT ALL THE CONTROL POSITIONS OF POWER, and ALL THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CRAP, WHO DID IT?! Go make a chart with names!

    Reply

  4. Term Paper Writing says:

    I read complete Article, this article is very
    informative.
    Thanks for your research on academic knowledge.
    Thanks for sharing us.

    Reply

  5. Jake says:

    “Double-Crossers, Cross-Dressers & Cross-Bashers”
    This would be a super great title for any future book about the Obama regime!
    (For more Obamania, Yahoo “Obama Avoids Bible Verses,” “Obama Supports Public Depravity” and “David Letterman’s Hate, Etc.”)

    Reply

  6. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    Deborah…I’ve been saying for ages that US aid to Israel should be contingent o Israel respecting the 1967 borders. Full Stop.

    Reply

  7. Deborah says:

    “Steve, what do you mean by “crossed the line”? Schumer swore no oath of personal loyalty to Barack Obama.” You’re right Nadine. But neither did Schumer swear on oath of personal loyalty to a foreign country. It’s not rocket science to grasp that “crossed the line” is not about an “oath” of allegiance or loyalty to Obama. It means that when US military personnel dare, and I mean dare because unlike Europe this is still the U.S. where it is still oh so “delicate” to criticize Israel and our oh so “special” relationship (yeah, how’s that working out for those of us who think Israel should be treated like a normal nation state instead of spoiled child that can injure our strategic interests?), to say that which everyone in the entire world can figure out, which is that the Israeli annexation of Occupied Territory (yes Nadine, look up international law please), is potentially dangerous to US strategic interests in the M.E., that means, drum roll please for how profoundly obvious this is, “crossing the line” means being so profoundly attached to Israel that you lose all perspective on what is best for the U.S.
    I’m Jewish, and unless we plan to make Israel the 51st state of the union, I think we should have some breathing space between U.S. and Israeli policy, and that we should attach the considerable amounts of foreign aid we give Israel to their following what we ask, no demand given that it’s our tax dollars, of them.
    This is not rocket science. It’s called Political Science.

    Reply

  8. Jerry says:

    I especially like the first part of Admendment I to the U.S. Constitution:
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”
    It not only realized the needs of a diversified nation, but also recognized the destructive nature of state religions.

    Reply

  9. Kathleen Grasso Adersen says:

    Jim Edwards…you sound like an Aryan, self-deluded sese of superiority.

    Reply

  10. panskeptic says:

    For the benefit of the “Israel can do no right” school, it’s well to remember that the Palestinians are a political football among the power players in the Arab world.
    Hezbullah was founded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. There were Iranian military advisors in Gaza during the last go-around, and they are a major presence in Southern Lebanon. Iran wants to supplant Saudi Arabia and Egypt as the major power in the region, and the Palestinians are merely a means to their end.
    And we have heard entirely too much from the “Israel has no right to defend itself” mob. A quick look at history indicates that it’s generally a bad idea for Jews to wait for permission from Christians to defend themselves.
    If the Arabs laid down their guns, there’d be no war. If the Israeli’s laid down their guns, there’d be no Israel.

    Reply

  11. nadine says:

    So Lili, when are you giving YOUR house back to the Indians?

    Reply

  12. Lili says:

    This is very,very simple. There is no “red,white, and blue.” There is only green.
    America was created solely for profit-by means of mass murder. Nothing more. The whole: We came from this,that, or the other horrific regime to life in peace stuff? Please. As soon as people arrived they started hating their neighbors in every way imaginable.
    It has not ever stopped.
    So blame the politicians, pick a culture to blame, or a religion.
    But know in your hearts that at the end of the day all you are here to do is “acquire” and “alienate them”.
    It started: “I want” and “MINE”.
    That is exactly how it is going to end.
    Americans need to start reading history books about how “civilizations” rise and fall.
    Nothing has changed whatsoever. Greed and power lust.
    America is toast. But have fun distracting yourselves by pointing fingers instead of looking in the mirror.

    Reply

  13. PissedOffAmerican says:

    This jackass screaming for Schumer to be hanged is either a feckless idiot, or one of Nadine’s slimey compatriots salting the blog with some fodder for disdain. My guess would be the latter.
    And Paul. If opposing NADINE’S “poisonous grip” on THIS BLOG is “anti-semitism” then I for one will happily wear that title, as well. She’s a one woman Anti-Semitism Manufacturing Facility. (ASMF)

    Reply

  14. Paul says:

    If opposing Israel’s poisonous grip on American foreign policy is “anti-Semitism” then I for one will happily wear that title. As these people keep setting the bar lower for calling someone an anti-Semite it becomes easier to wear the title without feeling bad about it.

    Reply

  15. Avery says:

    IF, Israel wanted peace, it would FLOOD Concentration Camp GAZA with food and healthy economic activity. Did America launch massive assaults and shoot Black American Women and Children dead in the streets or use Jet Fighters and launch Artillery and Missiles into CIVILIAN areas? NO! Israel does so because Israel wants Ethnic Cleansing, NOT peace. Where is Israel’s Recognition of the PALESTINIAN’S RIGHT to EXIST!? Israel demands the Palestinians “repudiate” this and that …Does Israel REPUDIATE the TORAH???? Israel was White RACIST, APARTHEID, South Africa’s ONLY ally, trading weapons, torture techniques, NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY, with them. Today Israel continues Racist APARTHEID with it’s wall. Israel enforces laws that are straight out of Nazi Germany such as Palestinians must have different colored ID cards and license plates, JUST like the yellow stars the Jews WAIL about having to wear. Palestinians have to use separate roads, IDENTICAL to Black OR Whites Only drinking faucets.
    Israel and South Africa were virtually twinned as military allies for Pretoria helped supply Israel militarily in the immediacy of its 1973 setback and Israel came to support apartheid South Africa at the height of sanctions with weaponry and technology

    Reply

  16. nadine says:

    Jim Edwards, I stopped reading Juan Cole after he tried make out that Osama bin Laden had planned 9/11 in revenge for the Israeli operation in Jenin, even though 9/11 happened in 2001 and Jenin happened in 2002, which ought to give you some idea of how careful Cole is about getting his facts straight.
    The second question is, who cares who is what religion, and what does that have to do with networks censoring comedy they fear might offend Muslims, but allowing any amount of offense towards other religions? Do we all have first Amendment rights now only if Muslims aren’t offended?

    Reply

  17. nadine says:

    Mores have changed. What happened to Jews and others in WWII led to a new set of international institutions and a more enlightened set of values…except in Israel, where 19th century values reign supreme.
    …or in Turkey, or in Russia, or in China, or in the Sudan, or in the Congo, or Rwanda, or in the entire Muslim Middle East.
    But those are big countries not inhabited by “white” people. So they’re okay!
    It’s safe to beat up on Israel. Not like offending Muslims, oh no, that wouldn’t be prudent. Wouldn’t want to end up dead like Theo van Gogh, now would we?
    Vicarious virtue combined with conspicuous cowardice. Not a pretty sight.

    Reply

  18. Jim Edwards says:

    Posted by nadine, Apr 24 2010, 4:43PM – Link
    Yes, larry, the stormfronters are out to play. Don’t you know that the only religion that must be treated with respect is Islam? It’s always open season on Christianity and Judaism. (Not just here either, look at how an image of Mohammed just got censored on South Park, when Jesus has been fair game for anything.)
    ===================
    You were referring to this article courtesy of the Jews at CNN:
    Has ‘South Park’ gone too far this time?
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/21/south.park.religion/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
    “It turns at that this minor, fringe group is led by converts from Judaism, one of them a former settler in Israel.”
    http://www.juancole.com/

    Reply

  19. Johnh says:

    Poor Israel (whine, sob!) “Someone must take the fall for the West’s (real) genocidal and colonial sins.” Playing the victimization card, as usual.
    If birnbaum cared to notice, we are a century removed from the American conquest of the West. Mores have changed. What happened to Jews and others in WWII led to a new set of international institutions and a more enlightened set of values…except in Israel, where 19th century values reign supreme.

    Reply

  20. Carroll says:

    Posted by David, Apr 24 2010, 5:53PM – Link
    “A truly competent, comprehensively informative media would produce a very different electorate. The majority of Americans, armed with sufficient accurate information that they can trust, will rise above their narrow selves.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Absolutely! It is the media.
    Right or left, MOST Americans would not support what is going on in their congress or what the US-Isr is doing in Palestine or the US-Isr relationship aberration.

    Reply

  21. larry birnbaum says:

    “We got away with taking the West away from its inhabitants, which in turn spawned a whole host of movies about our frontier “heroes” as they battled the “savages.”
    Same s***, different century. The more I think about the stranglehold the Israeli manifest destiny crowd has over congress, the more disgusted I become.”
    This is a very clear instance of the projection that is often at work in thinking about this problem. Someone must take the fall for the West’s (real) genocidal and colonial sins. And the usual suspects have been rounded up.

    Reply

  22. David says:

    We got away with taking the West away from its inhabitants, which in turn spawned a whole host of movies about our frontier “heroes” as they battled the “savages.”
    Same s***, different century. The more I think about the stranglehold the Israeli manifest destiny crowd has over congress, the more disgusted I become.
    What’s-your-face, the apartheid apologist, your problem is that POA employs unrestrained facts and cold, hard logic to arrive at his conclusions. You pull yours out of the mists of ideology-driven myths and misleading selections of facts. What you leave out is most telling.
    It is our fault that political figures are so beholden to campaign contributions and powerful special interests. We refuse to endorse public financing, and we refuse collectively to pay enough attention or look sufficiently below the suface, while our media consistently refuse to provide the opportunity for us to become fully informed, genuinely responsible voters.
    I understand Barney Frank’s dilemma, and I hate it with a passion. American voters simply will not stand behind political figures who do the right thing, some because of their misguided ideologies and some because of their sheer ignorance. That is American democracy at work. Doesn’t have to be that way. A truly competent, comprehensively informative media would produce a very different electorate. The majority of Americans, armed with sufficient accurate information that they can trust, will rise above their narrow selves.
    Why in hell do people think the press is protected in the Bill of Rights? Pity that in the corporate world of media conglomerates, they fail so miserably in fulfilling their theoretical mission. Their real mission, particularly broadcast media, is, of course, to sell things. Whatever best sells things is what they will do. And in competing with broadcast media to sell things, of course print media will lose. And there is no other way in which they are actually resonant with American culture, except for pop/gossip media.
    This is one of those days when it seems to me, being honest, that we are well and truly Cheneyed. But the folk at TWN refuse to surrender, FSM love them.

    Reply

  23. nadine says:

    btw, the so-called “huge percentage of the West Bank being taken up by the settlement blocs” is: 4%.
    That’s the footprint of the settlement blocs as a percentage of the area of the West Bank.
    These people make a living telling lies to kids who couldn’t find these places on a map.

    Reply

  24. nadine says:

    Yes, larry, the stormfronters are out to play. Don’t you know that the only religion that must be treated with respect is Islam? It’s always open season on Christianity and Judaism. (Not just here either, look at how an image of Mohammed just got censored on South Park, when Jesus has been fair game for anything.)
    For those of you who are liberals or progressives but are not in bed with the “Israelis are exactly the same as the Nazis” or “America is what’s wrong with the world” or “a Jewish cabal is running the USA/the whole world” memes of the New Left, take a good look at the company you’re keeping.

    Reply

  25. J Heart says:

    Israel, and its genocidal policies and prison camps, is a huge thorn in the side of any hope for MidEast peace. Of course its success as a rogue nation in illegally acquiring nuclear weapons is a major driver to the nuclear arms race as well. But, it has so much political sway, via various sleazeholds, over the US Congress, that very little can practically done to rein in this unfolding terrorist debacle.

    Reply

  26. JohnH says:

    Birnbaum, you need to educate yourself. Within Judaism there is a wide range of interpretation about the meaning of ‘chosen people.’ And then there is the interpretation by religious nationalists, which has little to do with traditional religious interpretations. Rather, it is much closer to John Edwards’ ironic interpretation.
    Birnbaum, if you want someone to clean up their act, start with racist religious nationalists, and get them to recognize Palestinians as fully human.

    Reply

  27. matt carmody says:

    If Ilan Pappe is correct, the zionist war against the Palestinian
    people began way before the Israeli state was established in
    1947. From day one of its existence, the aim of Israel has been
    to cleanse the area of Palestinians, following the well established
    ground rules like rounding up the men, moving the women and
    children out of the area, either burning down or physically
    destroying the remaining homes, and then obliterating the area
    of all remnants of its previous occupants.
    We’ll never acknowledge our crimes around the world as a
    nation as long as our government is infiltrated by people like
    Emanuel, Schumer, DiFi, Clinton, Lieberman, and anyone else
    who apologizes for the continuing war crimes of the state of
    Israel against the Palestinian people.
    And let’s not forget the USS Liberty incident where our “friends”
    attacked and killed US naval forces during the 1967 land theft
    by Israel.

    Reply

  28. larry birnbaum says:

    Again, mischaracterizing the theology of a religion that you clearly don’t know anything about and placing it in a negative light — in this instance, misunderstanding and twisting the concept of “Chosen People” in Judaism — is highly inappropriate behavior, to put it mildly.

    Reply

  29. Jim Edwards says:

    I am disgusted at the blatant antisemitism here. Let me clarify a few facts:
    Jews are The Chosen People. We are better than you. Sucks to admit that, but it is fact. That Israel comes before the goyim State of America, is only a natural state of affairs. This may be difficult to swallow, but so is good medicine.
    Americans are fortunate to have the services of some of Israel’s best and brightest in the upper echelons of the Federal Gov’t, private banking and media control.
    You should count your blessings, and let’s move forward to a better America.

    Reply

  30. Carroll says:

    “”This is very much like what Rep. Bob Filner said last year at J Street when he said that he voted against the lobby in his San Diego district once and lost $250,000 a cycle in his giving. Most members wouldn

    Reply

  31. Carroll says:

    Posted by nadine, Apr 23 2010, 7:59PM – Link
    ” The aim is to make Israel illegal until after it self-destructs. Once it’s dead, it can be legal. There’s a new term for this effort: lawfare.
    By then the Jews would be dead or driven out or reduced to degraded status. The Left will avert their eyes, like they did with Cambodia and Zimbabwe.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Israel has already been made illegal by Israel.
    I suggest you direct your concerns about the Jew’s ultimate welfare to those who are actually responsible for ‘degrading’ their status.
    That would be the Netanyahus, the Schumers, AIPAC and other zionist leaders.

    Reply

  32. rachel says:

    hypocrites the whole lot of them. Oh I dare Obama question BiBi and I dare Hillary criticize Bibi in public all these things must be done in private they are our friends hmmm But yet they see nothing wrong bellowing to anyone who will listen how horrible our policy is simply because we asked Israel to stop buliding in an area that is disputed while we try to get neogiations going. I find it funny that these people bellow about our debt and how much healthcare will cost but have no problem with us handing of billons to Israel and allowing isreal to kick us in the face.

    Reply

  33. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Birnbaum.
    There can be no more illustrative exhibition of racism and bigotry than what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. And your blind support of these attrocities is equally as blatant in its exposure of you own racism and bigotry. Your accusations of anti-semitism is hypocricy in its most insidious form.

    Reply

  34. larry birnbaum says:

    “elder trolls of zionism”
    Taking a winking or ironic stance towards an intentionally anti-Semitic reference does not, in fact, make it OK.

    Reply

  35. nadine says:

    I never read Tony Karon’s blog before; now that I have, I see why Times foreign coverage has been so dismal. Here is a man who actually trusts Roger Cohen’s judgment, our modern Walter Duranty.
    He dismisses Dennis Ross on the basis of an anecdote by Roger Cohen that Ross had problems defending Obama’s Iran policy to King Abdullah of KSA, which is even more dim-witted. King Abdullah told Ross point blank that he wasn’t interested in more talk; he needed to see action. Unfortunately for Ross, Obama’s entire Iran policy is talk-talk-talk-talk-talk-talk-talk, so how was Ross supposed to use his diplomatic genius to pull a rabbit out a hat? This is an indictment of the policy, not of Ross, only Karon is too blinkered to see it himself.

    Reply

  36. nadine says:

    “yes, anyone that criticizes israel is a racist, islamist, extremist, ultranationalist, nazi Anti-Semite “stormfronter”!!!”
    No, but “racist, islamist, extremist, ultranationalist, nazi Anti-Semite ‘stormfronter'”s can be counted on to always blame Israel first, last and always. It is possible to be anti-Zionist without being a Jew-hater, but it requires a level knowledge and discernment not usually possessed by the local Israel-haters.
    BTW, the one adjective that does not belong in that list is “ultranationalist”. Today’s European & American anti-Semitism is of the Left, and more likely to be tranationalist than nationalist.

    Reply

  37. the pair says:

    wow, this one really brought out the elder trolls of zionism…my favorite is “did someone upset the stormfronters?” the rich, numerous and fascinating levels of stupidity in that one would take a study roughly the size of “war and peace” to dissect, but i’ll lay out two of its more glaringly moronic contradictions:
    1. do the israel firsters that say that kind of thing realize we’re talking about an ostensibly white senator criticizing an ostensibly black president? is that level of cognitive dissonance healthy? yes, i know so many “stormfronters” that leap to the defense of obama and arab palestinians when they come under fire (literally or figuratively.)
    2. yes, anyone that criticizes israel is a racist, islamist, extremist, ultranationalist, nazi Anti-Semite “stormfronter”!!! grow the f__k up. that is sooooooo 2001.
    my other fave is “schumer didn’t sign a loyalty oath to obama”. where to begin…well, first off – he’s a go__amn SENATOR in the US senate. obama is not america, but the people schumer is supposed to serve sure as hell are and if he’s so concerned with israel he should either move there or campaign in an overwhelmingly zionist state. oops…never mind on that last choice.
    putting aside that talk of “loyalty oaths” makes the commenter come off as a glenn beck birther type, is that a glass house someone supporting israel and avigdor lieberman want to throw stones in after the knesset considered the latter’s idea for “loyalty oaths to israel” that would be signed under threat of fines, imprisonment or deportation?
    way to reveal what a bunch of fascist neomcarthyites you israel firsters are underneath your pathetic semblance of “liberal humanists.” you sicken me.
    as for the article, well done.

    Reply

  38. james mclean says:

    The president of the US must represent our interests. I very much applaud our president pushing our interests here. Senator S is running for election and forgetting our national interest comes first.

    Reply

  39. David says:

    It absolutely is what needed to be said about Shumer, and that blind spot is total, not partial. I, too, would not lump Russ Feingold with Chuck Shumer. Need to go see what Senator Al Franken is saying about this issue. Haven’t been able to watch The Daily Show for a couple of weeks, so I don’t know what Jon Stewart is or isn’t saying about this.
    I have said elsewhere (and the idea is not original with me – I got it from a very fair-minded colleague who taught history and has no use for any kind of racism or other forms of systemic bias or hatred based on demographics or facts of birth) that Israel is an albatross around the Democratic Party’s neck. It does not have to be that way, but it is because being blindly “pro-Isreal” has such power over the Congress. All I know to do is keep encouraging J-Street and every other fair-minded, justice-first-and-foremost group. Israel is on a suicide course, and Chuck Shumer seems utterly unable to comprehend that fact.

    Reply

  40. JohnH says:

    Yep, “losing control of the narrative.” This is when Israel’s arrogance and loss of moral standing begin to really hurt them.
    And Nadine in her desperation once again probes the outer bounds of ridiculousness: “just because you don’t buy the Arab League’s interpretation.” Nobody ever mentioned the Arab League among the long list of highly respected international organizations that consider Israeli settlement activity to be illegal.

    Reply

  41. DonS says:

    It is well known that Schumer has been working behind the scenes trying to talk Obama down from some of the more nonsensical policies he’s adopting (nadine)
    The only ‘trying to talk down’ that Schumer tried with Obama was to influence him not to publically confront Israel, the Israel lobby, or to highlight that lock step support of Israel undermines the interests of American citizens and American interests around the world. “Nonsensical” to Schumer equates with revealing Israel’s feet of clay, and he is no more interested in balancing Israeli policy with what is best for American interests than you are, nadine. Of course, to Schumer, American interests must always coincide with Israeli interests, as the totally inconsistent and duplicitious “no space” rhetoric implies.
    Obama does not need Chuck Schumer to instruct him on what policies are ‘productive’ and which are not. Schumer cannot be trusted to represent an objective American viewpoint. His brazen ‘Israel can do no wrong’ attitude flashes out loud. Obama would be a fool to think otherwise.
    What schumer fears most is light of day to be shown on Israeli behavior and negative influence on America’s well being and safety. Losing control of the narrative.

    Reply

  42. samuelburke says:

    has there ever been a bigger bunch of clowns?
    the lead clown dennis ross americas problem.
    manipulators extraordinaire.
    http://tonykaron.com/2009/08/01/more-dennis-ross-
    dissembling/
    “Once again, the boundless dissembling of Dennis Ross

    Reply

  43. nadine says:

    JohnH, just because you don’t buy the Arab League’s interpretation of the Geneva Conventions doesn’t mean you have ignored the US ratification of the Geneva Conventions.
    The Left is very good at cherry picking the Geneva Conventions. The Conventions make a distinction between aggressive and defensive war; the Left ignores it. They make a distinction between legal and illegal combatants; the Left ignores that too. The authors of the Conventions were trying to avoid setting up a system that would give advantage to aggressors who obeyed no rules of war; but the Left is happy to side with such aggressors. As long as they’re not white or Western. Such is the modern “liberal”.

    Reply

  44. Miriam says:

    thank you for saying what HAD to be said about Schumer. shame
    shame shame on him and his ilk.
    What kind of person with access to all the history and even
    classified documentation about what has and is being done to
    the occupied people of Palestine would say what he had the
    cojones to say about an occupied population? a man who is
    paid an enormous amount of money by the LOBBY….and when
    he retires he is welcome to run for the Knesset or whatever else
    he wants to do for his other homeland but until that day he was
    elected to represent the AMERICAN people/tax payers. He has
    one helluva nerve criticizing Pres Obama at this critical juncture;
    What of the dozens of international laws, rules, regs and UN
    resolutions that Israel continues to ignore? why are they still
    receiving more money than all of sub-Saharan Africa foreign aid
    and military support? Why are THEY building the WALL between
    the US and MEXICO thru Elbit? too many questions but a BIG
    THANK YOU to STEVE for raising this issue. We are overdue for
    big changes with respect to Israel. Cut off the spigot. I am a US
    Veteran and a Jew..telling you this just to offer that one CAN
    learn and overcome hasbara and propaganda IF one is willing!
    warmest regards

    Reply

  45. JohnH says:

    Ah, Nadine now poses as an expert on international law! Her opinion holds more weight than the US government and all those international organizations that view Israeli settlements as illegal!
    And then she claims that Schumer is only obliged to recognize American law. Mysteriously, Nadine, our font of legal wisdom, fails to recognize that the Geneva Conventions were all ratified by the United States, so the US agreed to abide by them.
    Schumer obviously feels that Israel is above the law, as does Nadine. Now we’re getting to the crux of the problem–Israeli disregard for the law and consequent criminality.

    Reply

  46. nadine says:

    By 2006, I was referring to Bush’s insistence that the Palestinians have elections to determine democratic leaders. Didn’t go as planned. Hamas got elected, then staged a coup. Islamists always regard democracy as a bus — to take it to where you want to go, then you get off.

    Reply

  47. nadine says:

    JD, you are stuck in a 1990s time warp. Go read the Spyer piece I posted from the Jpost – I have always found Yezid Sayigh, whom he quotes, as one of the most astute commentators on the Middle East. (Sayigh said of Arafat in 2001 that he had no strategy; he just “escapes by running ahead”, and that turned out to be a very accurate assessment of the case.) Sayigh says now that the Arab fault line between Western allies and Iranian allies runs right through Palestinian politics, through Hamas and Fatah and PM Fayyad. What one side accepts the other will not. Link: http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=173761
    Israel cannot settle now on reasonable terms. Israel cannot settle now on any terms. As Yossi Klein Halevi’s Peace Now friend said to him, “The Palestinians won’t let us end the occupation.”
    The rich corrupt Fatah honchos who have made such a good living off eternal victimhood do not want to wind up being thrown off tall buildings like their unfortunate brethren in Gaza. They know if the IDF withdraws, Dayton’s forces probably won’t be able to stave off Hamas. Therefore they do not desire an Israeli withdrawal, but merely an adjustment of the conditions of the Occupation to their liking. Of course they will say just the opposite. That’s how the game is played.

    Reply

  48. nadine says:

    JohnH, Schumer is an AMERICAN Senator, and he is required to recognize AMERICAN law, which is established by the AMERICAN Congress, a point you seem very muddled about.
    Nor is the international law as settled as you make out, since the various Geneva conventions refer to occupied territories, i.e., territories that belongs to Country A but are occupied by Country B. In the case of the West Bank, there is no Country A; there has been no internally recognized owner since the Brits left. The Arabs could have made Palestine when they occupied the West Bank, but they didn’t want to.
    Like the refugee situation, this is another example of Arab countries and their allies (esp. the UN and transnational progressive NGOs) interpreting international law to rule that Israel must pay for everything that the Arabs messed up by starting and losing wars, which the Arabs keep as messed up as possible. The aim is to make Israel illegal until after it self-destructs. Once it’s dead, it can be legal. There’s a new term for this effort: lawfare.
    By then the Jews would be dead or driven out or reduced to degraded status. The Left will avert their eyes, like they did with Cambodia and Zimbabwe.

    Reply

  49. jdledell says:

    “This is not the time to run around trying to get “fair” deals for the Palestinians. Bush tried that in 2006, and what happened?”
    Nadine – You are full of crap again. What fair deal was offered in 2006? Details please!!!!!!!
    Israel will never have peace until they do offer a fair deal. Their standing in the world will continue to erode and the demographics will continue to be against them. How long do think Israel can hold to the status quo? 5 more years, 10, 50? If you ever dealt with Palestinians you would note that they will not give in to an unfair deal. To them honor demands fairness even if it means waiting for another 100 years.
    If you are counting on the Haredi to overcome the demographic problem with Palestinians then you are sadly mistaken. The Haredi as an Israeli majority constitute a threat to the very existence of a modern Israel and I’m sure you understand why.
    I simply do not understand why you believe this conflict resolution can be put off indefinitely. Israel is the strongest it’s been militarily and economically. Do you think Israel should wait to settle until Iran, Saudia Arabia, Egypt and Jordan have nuclear weapons? It will start with Iran and if you think either the US or Israel can stop it, you are delusional.
    Israel can either settle now with reasonable terms or wait for an even worse deal down the road – a world imposed one state solution. The world will not let millions of people continue to be stateless forever.

    Reply

  50. Dan Kervick says:

    The key point here is that Schumer is just dead wrong on substance.
    If Schumer does not recognize that the previously established US policy of allowing Israel carte blanche in its dealings with Palestinians; of declining to to criticize Israel publicly no matter what it does to Palestinians; and of being seen before the entire world as wholly unconcerned with Palestinian rights and interests in the face of evident aggression, and meekly subservient to domestic pressure groups in the formulation of its foreign policy – if he can’t see that these things are greatly detrimental to almost everything the US tries to accomplish in the Middle East, and even in the rest of the world, then he is dead wrong – foolishly, blunderingly, senselessly wrong.
    Is he loyally and misguidedly wrong, and just so blinded by ethnic partisanship he can’t see the obvious? Or is he duplicitously, cynically and disloyally wrong? I don’t know. But it amounts to the same bad posture in the end.
    Schumer is a Democratic Senator. He’s not just plain folks. He’s not a blogger. He’s not a freelance pundit. If he had a problem with any other Obama administration foreign policy decision in the Middle East, he would likely either keep his most serious doubts to himself or else, if compelled by conscience to demur, would be discreet, respectful and cautious in his public statements. He wouldn’t go on the radio or tube and run his mouth at nauseatic length with a fellow tribesman, just like he were sitting on the deck as his beach house, with his tongue loosened up from a few hi-balls.
    And stepping back a bit, and blocking our ears so we aren’t distracted by the routine Zionist Code Orange hysteria alarms that are set of every time a negative word about Israel is whispered, we can observe that the substantive, real *content* of the Obama administration’s criticisms of Israel is so mild, so reserved and of such modest distance from the previous policy of obsequious acquiescence and silence, that it is hard to see what all the Israeliphile screeching is about in the first place.
    We need to see some prominent Jewish-American politicians show that they are willing to criticize Israel’s land-grabbing policies, when those policies are clearly at odds with the diplomatic interests of the United States. Or at least they might show that they have the brains and fortitude to endure those necessary criticisms in silence, without actively working to undermine attempts to repair the US’s tattered reputation.
    I saw a global poll last week that showed that the US’s reputation in the world, almost alone among the world’s countries, has risen sharply since Obama took office. Hey, Clueless Chuck: That’s *your* country. Maybe you should consider the possibility that the leader of your party actually has a clue.

    Reply

  51. DonsBlog says:

    Sorry Nadine, but the current coalition and Shumer’s
    position won’t bring any change in the status at
    all. We’ll just continue sinking resources into a
    trouble spot we shouldn’t be involved in. No matter
    how the coalition is broken, it will be the first
    step in a real solution.
    The US is behind the split of Palestinian rule, so
    it’s funny we’d complain about it. We insisted on a
    vote in Palestine, then threw a tantrum when the
    results aren’t what we wanted to force on them. The
    PLO was so corrupt at the time there was no way they
    could be reelected.

    Reply

  52. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    Schumer would not be my choice for Masjority Leader for many reasons…he’s too conservative for my taste, din’t he propose John Roberts for SC? Yuck…then there’s his skewed attitude towards Israel, which in the long run, won’t be good for the whole region, including Israel… unfairess has its backlash.
    I would not lump Russ Feingold into that little group just because he’s Jewish…he is extremely principled and, in my opinion, the only “leader” in the Senate. aLL the Pro-Israel folks were bent on invading Iraq…not Feingold.

    Reply

  53. JohnH says:

    Nadine, it’s not ‘my notion’ of what is criminal.
    Israeli settlement activity is widely considered illegal.
    “International intergovernmental organizations such as the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, every major organ of the United Nations, the European Union, and Canada, have declared that the settlements are a violation of international law. A review of Israel’s country report conducted by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination stated “The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention, which, as noted in the Committee’s General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There is a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, is an imperative norm of international law.” Non-governmental organizations including Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have also characterized the settlements as a violation of international law. In 1978, the Legal Adviser of the Department of State to the United States Congress concluded that “the establishment of the civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law.” Israel, the Anti-Defamation League and some prominent legal scholars disagree. Under Israeli law, West Bank settlements must meet specific criteria to be legal; Approximately 100 unauthorized small communities that do not meet these criteria exist and are called illegal outposts.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
    When Schumer refuses to recognize the rule of law, he shows that he is unfit to hold a legislative position.

    Reply

  54. Carroll says:

    Let’s all remember that Obama’s US position on Israel is backed by INTERNATIONAL LAWS that the US helped create and is obligate to uphold.
    It’s not “just” Obama’s position, it’s the WORLD’S POSITION.
    Obama’s policy and position on Israeli settlements has been the “OFFICIAL” US POSITION FOR DECADES and a OFFICIAL CONDITION of the aid they receive from the US. Israel has violated the terms of the aid they receive from us by ignoring the attached conditions.
    Obama is trying to now enforce that policy.
    Bush II did not try to enforce it.
    Clinton did not try to enforce it
    Bush I tried to enforce it.
    Carter did not enforce it
    Johnson did not enforce it.
    Kennedy was preparing to enforce it and have AIPAC registered as a foreign lobby before he was killed.
    Eisenhower before settlement question even became official policy, put Israel and it’s supporters in their proper place and let them know what would happen if Israel stepped over the line.
    Obama’s position is the US position and the majority world’s position and the International Law’s position.
    It’s the position of 71% of the US public who wants the US to take no side in the I/P conflict.
    Schumer is a Traitor. Period.

    Reply

  55. Carroll says:

    Let’s all remember that Obama’s US position on Israel is backed by INTERNATIONAL LAWS that the US helped create and is obligate to uphold.
    It’s not “just” Obama’s position, it’s the WORLD’S POSITION.
    Obama’s policy and position on Israeli settlements has been the “OFFICIAL” US POSITION FOR DECADES and a OFFICIAL CONDITION of the aid they receive from the US. Israel has violated the terms of the aid they receive from us by ignoring the attached conditions.
    Obama is trying to now enforce that policy.
    Bush II did not try to enforce it.
    Clinton did not try to enforce it
    Bush I tried to enforce it.
    Carter did not enforce it
    Johnson did not enforce it.
    Kennedy was preparing to enforce it and have AIPAC registered as a foreign lobby before he was killed.
    Eisenhower before settlement question even became official policy, put Israel and it’s supporters in their proper place and let them know what would happen if Israel stepped over the line.
    Obama’s position is the US position and the majority world’s position and the International Law’s position.
    It’s the position of 71% of the US public who wants the US to take no side in the I/P conflict.
    Schumer is a Traitor. Period.

    Reply

  56. nadine says:

    Paul, you might find this interesting. It is a letter by former Norwegian diplomat Sven Olaf Eid, which was published in the August 17, 2006, Wall Street Journal:
    Based on my experience from service with the United Nations in Egypt, the Palestinian territories and Lebanon in the 1950s and

    Reply

  57. nadine says:

    “”The anti-Iraq war protesters usually didn’t come straight out
    and proclaim Saddam an innocent lamb.”
    Only secretly, then, or on rare occasions?
    Do you feel comfortable with that insinuation, Nadine?” (Paul Norheim)
    Actually, yes, very comfortable. Because the minute WMDs were not found, these protesters set up the cry – Saddam never had WMD and Bush knew it! Saddam was framed! This, about a ruler who had a long track record of both having and using WMDs, on Persians and Iraqis both, and who had made such a good bluff of still having them that his own generals thought he did.
    Of course, they could’t spend too much time outright defending Saddam, who was indefensible, so they used the usual multi-culturalist trick of averting their eyes from the “other” guy and just screaming at the “us” guy, George W. Bush. They also repeated Saddam’s propaganda: 500,000 dead babies! ad nauseam.

    Reply

  58. nadine says:

    “My favorite analysis of the Obama I/P policy is that Obama is trying to force Bibi to break off his coalition with Lieberman and other pro-settler
    groups and create a more moderate coalition with
    Kadima. ” (DonsBlog)
    DonsBlog, maybe Obama is trying to break Bibi’s coalition, but it shows that he is as out of touch with Israeli politics as he is with Palestinian politics.
    Bibi is already in coalition with the Left – Ehud Barak is Defense Minister. Bibi tried to form a coalition with Kadima, but Livni insisted on being Prime Minister and Bibi wouldn’t agree. Nor would he now, so what Obama really wants is to force a vote of no confidence in the Knesset, which means he must cause a loss of public support for Bibi first.
    If that’s what Obama wanted, then picking a fight over a zoning permit for a housing development in an established Jewish neighborhood of north Jerusalem (which will remain in Israel in any proposed settlement) was entirely the wrong fight to pick. It made more people rally around Bibi than desert him. In order to drive a wedge between Bibi and his coalition partners, Obama needed to pick a wedge issue. Jerusalem — esp. keeping the existing Jewish parts of Jerusalem — is not a wedge issue in Israel politics.
    Obama doesn’t know anything, and he’s getting really crummy advice.

    Reply

  59. nadine says:

    JohnH, Schumer is no more required to agree with your notion of what is criminal, or Obama’s, than I am. Steve Clemons is reacting as if Schumer broke some oath of personal loyalty to Obama. That is not how our system works. It certainly didn’t work like that under Bush!
    The charges of dual loyalty are disgusting and entirely undeserved. Schumer is saying: this policy won’t work. So Aaron David Miller, an old foreign policy hand never suspected of having too much warmth for Israel. Is he a dual loyalist too?
    It is well known that Schumer has been working behind the scenes trying to talk Obama down from some of the more nonsensical policies he’s adopting. Obama won’t listen and doesn’t learn. It seems to be a pattern with him. His reaction to failure is: more of Plan A.

    Reply

  60. Joyce says:

    I am continually outraged over our complete prostration before Israel. Our permanent “support Israel” policy is the reason we incurred “9/11.” Osama Bin Laden has stated this on several occasions in his videos. Our soldiers are dying in foolish, expensive wars because of our policy with Israel (among other things). But we don’t get it. Israel would not EVER bully other mideast countries without knowing we will always support them in their terrorism. We send them billions of dollars every year along with the latest in weapons, even though we are bankrupt. AIPAC has gotten much for its money. Schumer is an AIPAC plant just as every congressman from my district. Moreover, our religious christian zealots have us locked in this death spiral with Israel as some holy mission. Our founders understood the need for separation of church and state. How about separation from the “synagogue” as well?

    Reply

  61. JohnH says:

    Yes, Nadine, Schumer is entitled to lay out an alternative policy. But that policy should not lambaste Obama’s criticism of Israel’s criminal behavior.

    Reply

  62. nadine says:

    jdledell, Sen. Schumer is not obliged to lay out an entire alternative policy. Schumer is telling the President, “I believe your current policy is counter-productive; it is the Palestinians who are refusing to negotiate, so it is they who must be pushed if it is negotiations you want.”
    The Palestinians are not so weak — 2 Billion in Aid! for 2 – 3 million people! nobody else on the planet has anything resembling that, which I suppose you could say is the Palestinian’s real problem. But their other problem is their division, and the strength of Hamas and other members of the Iranian-backed “resistance” block. Unless you really want to give the WB to Hamas, it would be better to leave the current situation alone. This is not the time to run around trying to get “fair” deals for the Palestinians. Bush tried that in 2006, and what happened?

    Reply

  63. JohnH says:

    Actually, questions, we can say some really bad things about domestic politicians, like question their commitment to defend the Constitution and to sanctity of the laws of the land. In Shumer’s case, I think we have reason for doubt both…

    Reply

  64. questions says:

    Dorothy Lyon,
    I think you have it all totally backwards, with all due respect.
    The original post above seems to suggest that Schumer himself needs to sign a loyalty oath, not that he needs to make others sign it.
    The idea that there is one true foreign policy, one true strategy, one true set of beliefs to which we must all adhere once the President Himself announces it is kind of a problem in a popular sovereignty-based political system.
    Now if you’re thinking that Avigdor Lieberman is being, I don’t know, undemocratic, in his demand for a loyalty oath, try looking at Arizona’s new immigration bill that’s sitting on the Gov’s desk. All brownskinned CITIZENS of the US and completely legal RESIDENTS of Arizona will be subject to stop, document check, arrest for lack of documents, need to hire lawyers and so on. Just cuz they are brownish looking. Note this. Brownskinned legal citizenz/residents will have to carry papers wherever they go or be subject to arrest. Veterans. Politicians. Teachers. Doesn’t matter. Skin color only.
    Try to locate the nasty stuff where it is. Loyalty oaths aren’t Schumer’s issue. And loyalty oaths aren’t just Avigdor Lieberman’s issue.
    Foreign policy disputes seem to be far scarier than are domestic policy disputes. The worst we say about domestic disagreements is “SOCIALIST” and “FASCIST” “nanana booboo”. But, man, you get internationally disputatious and suddenly it’s “DIVIDED LOYALTIES” and “TRAITOR”.
    Wow. Just wow.

    Reply

  65. Maw of America says:

    I have no problem with Schumer making his opinions known, same as Jim DeMint and James Inhofe. What I do have a problem with is their inability to give us a realistic forecast of policies they advocate.
    What is the endgame? If you favor attacking Iran, what happens the day after? If you want to eject every illegal immigrant, how do you do that and what about their children born here? Knee-jerk reactions are entertaining but simplistic. I need a realistic prediction that extends beyond the next news cycle.

    Reply

  66. Dorothy Lyon says:

    Whenever an American president finds any daylight at all between our own nation’s national interests and those of Israel, Mr. Schumer’s Jewishness comes into play.
    Israel’s Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, recommends that Israel’s Arab population (approximately 1.5M Israeli citizens) be required to sign loyalty oaths declaring their undivided allegiance to Israel. Perhaps, Mr. Schumer would like to do the same for America. Since his behavior with respect to all things Israel is so predictable, it leaves one wondering.

    Reply

  67. wtf says:

    A country can’t build some buildings in it’s capitol without half the world having to voice an opinion. C’mon people. get a life.

    Reply

  68. Carroll says:

    Let me say this again..Schumer is a “foreign loyaltist”, not a dual loyalist. You can skate as a dual loyalist up until the time when you actually “have to make a choice” which country’s interest you will work for.
    You become a ‘foreign loyalist’ when you chose to side against the interest of the country you are a ctizen of and living in and suppose to represent in your elected office.
    Schumer is a traitor in the sense of the average person’s undertanding of betrayal of your country’s interest.
    If it is ‘dangerous”, so be it, it is only dangerous to those to whom it applies.
    It is far more ‘dangerous” to let foreign loyalist and traitors continue to have positions of influence in our government.
    New Rule: Call them what they are. Traitors.
    No more PC speech, no more taboos.

    Reply

  69. JohnH says:

    Ah, JIM has joined the chorus of those cheering Israeli criminality.
    According to such crime advocates, Israel is the victim for its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Israel is the victim for violating international law by building settlements in occupied territory. And Israel is the victim for stealing land from Palestinians to build the settlements.
    I guess Bernie Madoff must have been the victim of some Islamo-fascist conspiracy. And the CEO of Goldman Sachs must be a victim of that same conspiracy!

    Reply

  70. JIM says:

    ANOTHER CASE OF BLAMING THE VICTIM FOR THE CRIME. THE ARAB WORLD DECLARED WAR ON ISRAEL ON DAY ONE OF ITS EXISTENCE. GAZA HAS FIRED 10,000 MISSILES ON ISRAEL SINCE 2005 BUT IT’S ISRAEL’S FAULT.
    STEVE CLEMONS, WHY DON’T WE GIVE BACK TO MEXICO THE SOUTHWEST UNITED STATES WHICH WE TOOK BY FORCE. WRITE AN ARTICLE ON THAT AND LISTEN TO BOB DYLAN’S ‘NEIGHBORHOOD BULLY’ WHICH IS AN ACCURATE ACCESSMENT OF THE ISRAELI SITUATION.

    Reply

  71. DonsBlog says:

    My favorite analysis of the Obama I/P policy is that
    Obama is trying to force Bibi to break off his
    coalition with Lieberman and other pro-settler
    groups and create a more moderate coalition with
    Kadima.
    Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like Tzipi Livni is
    willing to cooperate, but Netanyahu will never be
    able to move forward on peace talks with his current
    coalition.
    I actually think Bibi is willing, just unable.

    Reply

  72. ... says:

    Panskeptic quote
    “Hamas and Hezbullah are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Iran. If you love Ahmadinejad, you must love them, too.”
    “However, the dual-loyalty accusations flying around here are nauseating.”
    no “dual loyalty” coming from you, lol….can you take that bullshit and spread it somewhere else?
    Posted by DonS, Apr 23 2010, 7:34AM – Link
    “Getting dragged into discussing Iraq is a red herring. There is not moral equivalence, or policy parallel.
    Time for those who stand up for sensible, loyal, American policy to go on the offense against the Firsters.”
    ditto that dons… that would be going after the likes of Panskeptic who is essentially spreading israel firster bullshit…………….

    Reply

  73. JohnH says:

    The depths of depravity that prominent US Senators will sink to never fails to amaze. Schumer has the audacity to criticize Obama for taking Israel to task on illegal settlements!
    And, that same Schumer has been noticeably silent in the face of egregious Wall Street corruption.
    It appears that same Schumer is a big fan of thuggish, illegal behavior, one of many in the US Senate.
    Who will Schumer shill for next, OJ?

    Reply

  74. jdledell says:

    Nadine and wigwag – I agree that Schumer can advocate any position he wants. He should be able to do so without the accusations of dual loyalty. However, he is a gutless wonder. He complains about Obama’s approach but where is his peace plan? If he wants to support Israel, fine, but what are his specifics?
    The problem with negotiations is the Palestinians are so weak that negotiations for them are a no win proposition. Without some equalizing agent(like the US) Israel will never yield enough to make for a fair agreement. Israel wants to hang on to all of Jerusalem as well as the Jordan Valley and the maximum number of settlements they can keep. They keep looking at negotiations thru the lens of “what is the least I have to give away” In reality they should be looking at “what kind of compromises can I make that will make this conflict go away forever”. That requires fairness and justice.
    Schumer’s statement that the Palestinians don’t believe in the state of Israel is pure generalized BS. What they want from Israel is a fair deal that will give them a viable, contiguous and sovereign state – that is something that Israel seems reluctant to offer.

    Reply

  75. Jerry says:

    The Obama Administration doesn’t have an “Israel first loyalty” as can be seen by its handling of settlement issue.
    President Obama has elevated the Palestinian cause to the same level as the Israeli cause in American dipomacy. Resolution of the Palestinian Israeli issue in a fair manner is key to American interests worldwide.
    The goal of building Palestinian instutions clearly elevates the Palestinian cause to parity with Israel.
    It will be interesting to see what replaces the Palestinian Authority as the instution building progresses.

    Reply

  76. samuelburke says:

    “More than a hundred activists from the Sheikh Jarrah movement
    in Jerusalem published an open letter to Elie Wiesel in response
    to the letter Wiesel published last week in the Washington Post:”
    http://mondoweiss.net/2010/04/wiesel-should-stop-offering-
    celestial-prescriptions-for-a-city-he-doesnt-live-in.html
    Dear Mr. Wiesel,
    We write to you from Jerusalem to convey our frustration, even
    outrage, at your recently published letter on Jerusalem. We are
    Jewish Jerusalemites

    Reply

  77. passingthru says:

    The dual loyalty canards, issued from liberals, proceed apace.
    And they wonder why liberals like me are abandoning the Democratic party in droves.

    Reply

  78. WigWag says:

    “Schumer’s screed gets to the edge of sounding as if he is more a Senator working in the Knesset than working in the United States Senate.” (Steve Clemons)
    So lets see if I have this straight; Steve thinks that because Schumer believes that Obama’s policy on settlements and Jerusualem is wrong and counterproductive, and because he said what he thinks in a public forum, that Schumer belongs in the Knesset rather than the United States Senate.
    What are the consequences of logic like Steve’s?
    Steve believes that the West in general and the United States in particular should engage Hamas. Steve also thinks that the United States should work to encourage rather than discourage a rapproachment between Hamas and Fatah. Steve hasn’t been subtle about this; he’s come right out and suggested it at his very respected and widely read blog. Shouldn’t we accuse Steve of supporting terrorism? After all, before their abilities to commit terrorist acts were degraded, wasn’t Hamas sending suicide bombers into pizzarias, bus depots, night clubs and religious ceremonies? By advocating negotiations with Hamas, isn’t Steve geting to the edge of sounding as if he supports these terrorist acts?
    Of course any accusation that Steve supports suicide bombings is absurd; but then so is the suggestion that Schumer’s positions make it more appropriate for him to serve in the Knesset than the Senate.
    Yet that is precisely the allegation that Steve made(or came close to making).
    Let’s hope that the explanation is that he’s still jet-lagged from his recent trip to Brazil.

    Reply

  79. Tridant says:

    AIPAC and Israel-firsters are parasites that have infiltrated the US government, has taken over its host, and made it an instrument of zionist war crimes and theivery. The cost to the US (in blood and treasure) is of no consequence to them. Nothing will change until people have the courage to confront the corrupting influence of AIPAC and Israel-firster, fully expose it and end it. Perhaps we are starting to see baby steps in that direction, but we are far from seeing

    Reply

  80. Scott says:

    Kathleen,
    I think you would find a much more nuanced picture w. DI FI and
    Feingold than with Schumer and Lieberman. To a some extent it’s
    natural for Jews to feel some loyalty to Israel — many of us have
    conflicted or multi-leveled loyalties, not only Jews. I do think that
    Israel first loyalty in the American govt is a big danger for
    American foreign policy right now, but in a multicultural society
    other such similar conflicts will inevitably surface. And a lot of
    Jews will try to manage the competing pulls with intelligence and
    good faith. Not Schumer, though.

    Reply

  81. PissedOffAmerican says:

    So, lets see, Hoyer, Huckabee, and Cantor gallivant off to Israel right on the heels of Obama’s publically stated position on the settlements, and offer their undying support to Netanyahu. Reid promptly sends a letter to decrying Obama’s actions, and actively solicits signers in Congress. Hillary compliments “concessions” that Netanyahu agrees to that even a outside the beltway carpenter in Central California knew were BULLSHIT, then she delares in a public speech that the Goldstone Report is “seriously flawed”. Recently, we see yet one more letter to the white House, signed by scores of chickenshit mewling wimps demanding that Obama demonstrate due fealty to Israel. Harman storms out of a public event because a political opponent dared challange her support for Israel’s crimes and attrocities.
    But now Schumer blathers the TYPICAL AND STATUS QUO bullshit, and Steve’s hackles are up? What did Schumer do to piss Steve off? Obviously it wasn’t Schumer’s disdain for the Presidency, because Reid, Hoyer, Cantor and Huckabee have been rubbing that disdain in our faces for months now, as has about 85% of Congress.
    Schumer??? Schumwer is just a small part of this. Steve is shooting rabbits when there are elephants marauding about.
    And what about Hillary, Steve? Her tepid and insincere criticisms of Israel are paying dividends in regards to I/P??? And her purposeful recital of the Israeli talking points and propaganda in regards to Iran and Syria??? Gee, she must have Netanyahu quaking in his boots.
    And by the way, while we are on the topic of selective indignation, it must be noted that this blog was certainly been politically on script in sensationalizing Neda’s death, while ignoring Tristan Anderson’s fate at the hands of the jackbooted IDF (SS) soldiers. And yet one more American citizen has since been SHOT DOWN by the IDF while engaged in peaceful protest, with nary a peep from this blog that is quite vocal in its reportage and commentary on the circumstances of IRANIAN protestors.
    While I celebrate your “outrage” at Schumer, Steve, it seems somewhat inexplicable considering your silence about the above described acts of subservience, committed by our so called “representatives”, in the face of Israeli intransigence and arrogance.

    Reply

  82. kathleen says:

    How can we have a Senate Majority Leader who is demonstrably more loyal to a foreign country than his own? People like Schumer (and Lieberman and Feinstein and Feingold) need to decide where their allegiance lies. If it is to Israel, that is their right…but then they shouldn’t be U.S. senators.

    Reply

  83. edwords says:

    When did Israel become our 51st state?
    Once again, religion is part of the problem.

    Reply

  84. larry birnbaum says:

    Steve Clemons’s biggest problem as a foreign policy analyst isn’t the particulars of his belief system in regards to Israel and the Middle East, although I think these are completely misguided. His biggest problem is his emotionalism and wishful thinking, which severely clouds his analytic judgment on many issues, this one in particular.
    Does Clemons think Senator Schumer is wrong in his analysis of the Arab-Israel conflict or in publicly chastising President Obama’s approach to it? Fine, he has a platform and he has the right and maybe even the obligation to use it to say so.
    But he goes beyond laying out the case, not just with the histrionic “crossed the line” rhetoric, which is ominous yet vague — who drew the line and what it is supposed to demarcate? — the emotionalism yet lack of clarity of this statement is striking; with the imputations of loyalty to a foreign government — “sounding as if he is more a Senator working in the Knesset than working in the United States Senate” — an extraordinarily grave charge and one that a serious person who took the meaning of their language seriously would think twice about putting down in print; and then finally with the prediction that this may cost Senator Schumer his shot at becoming Majority Leader should Senator Reid be defeated this fall — expressing a hope in this way that Senator Schumer will pay politially for the statements Clemons objects to, without any argument whatsoever as to how or why this political cost would come to pass, is merely wishful thinking.
    So: Emotionalism, lack of clarity, making serious charges that a person who took themselves and their utterances seriously would be hesitant to make, without apparent reflection on how serious they are, and wishful thinking. Steve Clemons is anything but a “realist”.

    Reply

  85. WigWag says:

    “I told the President, I told Rahm Emanuel and others in the administration that I thought the policy they took to try to bring about negotiations is counter-productive, because when you give the Palestinians hope that the United States will do its negotiating for them, they are not going to sit down and talk,” (Senator Charles Schumer as quoted by Steve Clemons)
    Schumer’s statement is entirely correct; if Steve thinks he can refute it, he should try. But I doubt he will because the statement is essentially irrefutable.
    Schumer is merely saying what he believes; tens of millions of Americans agree with him, so do many if not most of the Senator’s constituents in New York. It’s what we call democracy; if the voters of New York think Schumer is wrong to criticize Obama on this subject they can vote him out. After all, he’s up for reelection this year. But of course, Schumer is a shoe-in for reelection; the voters of New York State don’t find his position on the Israel-Obama imbroglio objectionable at all. Senator Schumer’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict is well-known to New Yorkers; the Senator is hardly shy about saying what the thinks about the Middle East or about anything else. Anyone want to guess what percentage of the vote Schumer’s going to get this November? 70 percent? 80 percent? 90 percent? I wonder whether more New Yorkers agree with Schumer or agree with the sentiments about the Middle East regularly expressed at the Washington Note.
    Is it Schumer who has an “Israel blind-spot” or is it the proprietor of this blog?
    Steve says,
    “Note to Senator Schumer: you have certainly unloaded a lot of blame on the White House today. I have done a quick lexis and Thomas search and have been unable to find a single instance in which you criticized the behavior of the Israeli government at any time on any issue.”
    It seems to me that Schumer’s criticisms of the Israeli government come along just about as frequently as Steve’s criticisms of the Palestinians or the Saudis. Anyone who doubts it it should search the archives of this blog.
    As for Steve’s comment,
    “Schumer’s screed gets to the edge of sounding as if he is more a Senator working in the Knesset than working in the United States Senate.”
    This is a cheap shot that I would have expected from several of the people who comment at the Washington Note but not from Steve himself. It seems to me that Steve’s screed gets close to the edge of making him sound ridiculous if not worse.
    As anyone who has taken 4th grade civics class knows, the United States Congress is a co-equal branch of government. Schumer is a United States Senator; he’s under no obligation to agree with or support the President’s policy whether he’s a member of the same political party or not. There are more United States senators who agree with Schumer than disagree with him. Is Steve questioning the loyalty of all of these Senators?
    Is it wise to question the loyalty of those you disagree with? Considering that Steve’s position on the Middle East dispute is the minority position, does Steve think that those who hold the majority position on this subject should criticize his loyalty?
    If Schumer were to support relaxing sanctions on Cuba more quickly than President Obama desires, would that get Schumer close to the edge of sounding like he was more a member of the Cuban Parliament than the United States Senate? If Schumer was a big critic of missile defense who wanted to go slower than President Obama on the development of anti-missile systems would that move him to the edge of membership in the Russian Duma? Steve’s argument is simply preposterous.
    Everyone understands that it offends realist sensibilities that the United States has historically viewed Israel in a special light and has a relationship with it that is in many ways unique. And everyone understands that Arabists like Steve must find it particularly galling that Americans view Israel so positively while they view the Palestinians so negatively.
    But the criticisms that Steve makes of Chuck Schumer actually find their mark not on the Senator but on Steve and people who agree with him. After all, when it comes to Israel, is Schumer more out of step with what his constituents think or is Steve (and his realist colleagues) more out of step with what the American people think?

    Reply

  86. samuelburke says:

    do my eyes deceive me? what is going on here in the united
    states?
    more and more i see americans questioning the loyalty of a
    certain class of american who while living in the u.s seem to be
    more interested in another country-namely israel.
    the infiltration of these dual loyalty americans into the higher
    spheres of government is coming under scrutiny more and more
    these days…it is almost like an intelligence operation being run
    by the several american agencies that seem to be tired of being
    run over by the political shenanigans of these israel first
    americans.
    http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2010/04/21/israel-first-
    more-on-dr-lani-kass/
    “My recent account of the career of Dr. Lani Kass was based on
    what has appeared about her in the public record and media,
    including her own comments regarding national defense and
    security policy. To recapitulate, Kass was born, raised, and
    educated in Israel. She has a PhD in Russian studies and is
    fluent in Russian and Hebrew in addition to English. Kass
    reportedly reached the rank of major in the Israeli air force
    before moving to the United States and working her way up
    through the US defense establishment. She is currently the
    most senior civilian adviser to Air Force Chief of Staff Norton
    Schwartz and is believed to have access to most American
    defense secrets. Kass is best known to the public for her role in
    promoting Air Force cyberwarfare, but she also appears to have
    been a major player in counter-terrorism policy and in war
    preparations directed against Iran even though she has no
    actual substantive background in those areas. She believes that
    the US is engaged in a long war against Islamo-radicalism and
    that “winning” against Iran is necessary but the American people
    must be willing to pay the price to succeed.
    My concern regarding Dr. Kass is based on the potential conflict
    of interest and divided loyalty that is normal in anyone who is
    born in one country and moves to another. She comes from a
    country that has a history of large scale and highly aggressive
    espionage directed against the United States and she appears to
    continue to have close ties to her birthplace. Dr. Kass has
    become a naturalized American while apparently retaining her
    Israeli citizenship”

    Reply

  87. Scott says:

    Very important post. It’s critical that these people be called out. If
    Schumer’s constituents (both NY and national) prefer a hard right
    Israeli govt. to a liberal American one, well that’s what politics are
    for. But the choices need to be clearly exposed.

    Reply

  88. Panskeptic says:

    Netanyahu is a disaster. No one has ever been able to seal a deal with him. Obama is not anti-Israel, he’s anti-Likud, and I agree with him.
    However, the dual-loyalty accusations flying around here are nauseating. According to this perfectly obvious anti-Semitism, all American Jews should reject Israel to prove their American patriotism.
    The fact is, Netanyahu can be voted out of office at any time. Israel has been a functioning multi-party democracy for over 60 years. However, Israel makes choices we dislike because they have no margin for error. 9/11 was a unique experience for us – it’s not for Israel, where the entire country is in range of rockets provided by Iran.
    Hamas and Hezbullah are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Iran. If you love Ahmadinejad, you must love them, too.

    Reply

  89. DonS says:

    Getting dragged into discussing Iraq is a red herring. There is not moral equivalence, or policy parallel.
    Time for those who stand up for sensible, loyal, American policy to go on the offense against the Firsters.

    Reply

  90. DonS says:

    J, you could have made a more twisted argument, but you would have had to go some Somehow being an Israel Firster — one who favors policy detrimental to the interests of the US — becomes a ‘patriotic dissenter’ . . . somehow equivalent to dissenting from the disastrous Iraq invasion.
    Steve is wrong on one count, however. Schumer doesn’t just have a ‘blind spot’ when it comes to Israel. He has a dangerous callousness about the safety of Americans throughout the world. Perhaps he thinks the rest of us are still cowering at the elephant in the room; 911 resulted in significant part from treasonous policy that the likes of Schumer advocate.

    Reply

  91. Paul Norheim says:

    “The anti-Iraq war protesters usually didn’t come straight out
    and proclaim Saddam an innocent lamb.”
    Only secretly, then, or on rare occasions?
    Do you feel comfortable with that insinuation, Nadine?
    Could you or “J” be generous and provide us with just ONE
    name of a prominent American protester who supported the
    Baath regime the way Schumer supports Netanyahu?
    Those who protested against the invasion of Iraq may have had
    many motives for doing so – most importantly failing to see the
    legitimization of that war, the wisdom of invading, and the
    connection to 9.11.
    The protest, in America as well as in Europe, had nothing
    whatsoever to do with any sympathy or secret support for
    Saddam and the brutal Baath regime. Almost everybody
    explicitly agreed that he and his regime was nasty. The entire
    disagreement was about how to handle this, not the nature of
    the regime and the dictator.
    Chuck Schumer – and the other pro-Israel hardliners who now
    criticize Obama’s I/P policies – explicitly, and as a principle,
    side with any government in charge in Israel, and with any
    action this government may be responsible for – including the
    current Netanyahu government and their positions and actions –
    and criticize any US policy that doesn’t adhere to that principle.
    That is the basic difference, and it’s dishonest to insinuate that
    the Iraq war protesters sympathized with Saddam the way the
    current pro-Netanyahu crowd sympathize with… well…any
    Israeli leadership as a rule.
    I am not an American, and not into this “traitor” stuff that
    Carroll currently promotes rather aggressively (and Steve
    Clemons perhaps alludes to?) in the US/Israel context. From a
    distance, I personally think that this kind of patriotism is
    potentially hysterical and dangerous (in the same way that
    McCarthyism was dangerous), but it’s not my business in a
    direct sense.
    (For what it is worth – in my very humble opinion – I think I
    would principally agree to a “conflict of interest” issue, but I
    would not recommend using the “traitor”, “dual loyalties”
    vocabulary in a careless way in the context of contemporary
    America. It could backfire – with plenty of unintended
    consequences in future conflicts with other constellations).
    But to insinuate that the opposition to the US invasion of Iraq
    was in any way related to a secret or open support of Saddam is
    just wrong, and intellectually dishonest.

    Reply

  92. Dan Kervick says:

    Schumer is free to dissent from US policy on Israel as much as he wants. The rest of us are free to note what his dissent indicates about what interests he holds paramount.

    Reply

  93. nadine says:

    The anti-Iraq war protesters usually didn’t come straight out and proclaim Saddam an innocent lamb (with the exception of Michael Moore), but they worked hard to try to make the US leave him alone:
    “After leading the crowd to cheer “No!” as a response to “What do we say to war?”, Tutu urged Bush to listen.
    “President Bush, listen to the voice of the people, for many times the voice of the people is the voice of God,” Tutu said. “Listen to the voice of the people saying, ‘Give peace a chance.'”
    CNN’s Maria Hinojosa said the crowd was diverse, with older men and women in fur coats, parents with young children, military veterans and veterans of the anti-war movement.
    Adele Welty, whose son, a firefighter, was killed in the attacks of September 11, 2001, said she believed Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator but that the United States should work with the United Nations to find a peaceful solution. ”
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/15/sprj.irq.protests.main/
    Dissent was patriotic then. A certain Illinois State Senator named — it will come to me — ah, yes, Barack Hussein Obama, that’s it, made quite a name for himself by being vocal in his opposition to the Iraq War.
    BTW, as I recall, it was not until after the war started that the anti-war protesters changed on a dime from crying “Don’t invade Iraq, Saddam will gas our troops” to crying “Of course Saddam never had any WMDs – Bush lied, people, died.”

    Reply

  94. Paul Norheim says:

    J,
    So let me get this straight… could you please provide us with
    some prominent names of people who opposed the invasion of
    Iraq, who explicitly sided with Saddam Hussein?

    Reply

  95. J says:

    So let me get this straight…when a President
    like George W. Bush decides to invade Iraq –
    protesting his foreign policy loudly and angrily
    is “patriotic dissent.” When right-wingers accuse
    these same people of being disloyal to the US in a
    time of war and ask why they are siding with
    Saddam Hussein or that they should move to France
    – we ridicule them for their fascism, McCarthyism,
    blind nationalism, chauvinism etc.
    But then someone comes along and gives some
    criticism of Obama’s policy re: Israel – and now
    these same “patriotic dissenters” who told us that
    dissent and protest is the highest form of
    patriotism – turn into chest beating, flag waving,
    uber-nationalists – “How dare you side with a
    foreign country over MY leader and our troops!!!!!
    USA USA USA!!!!”
    Give me a break.

    Reply

  96. Carroll says:

    Opps, here’s another revelation on our Israeli infiltrated government that is causing a firestorm on the net. I came across this info on her long ago but now it has been brought up again.
    Quite honestly with all the Israeli traitors and agents in our goverment it’s a wonder the US is still standing.
    Giraldi says senior Air Force adviser may have dual loyalty to Israel
    by Philip Weiss on April 22, 2010

    Reply

  97. nadine says:

    In answer to Hi, Yup, the stormfronters are upset.
    In answer to the “How dare he” crowd: Schumer for whatever reasons (probably political self-interest) is trying to drag the Obama administration away from a profoundly counter-productive policy that will lead nowhere good for American OR Israeli OR Palestinian interests, since it is disconnected from reality. Obama assumes there is one Palestinian entity who could run a state if given one. But there isn’t one. Jonathan Spyer in the Jpost describes the divided nature of Palestinian politics right now:
    “Veteran Palestinian political analyst Yezid Sayigh recently noted that both the Gaza and Ramallah governments are dependent for their economic survival on foreign assistance. The Fayyad government has an annual $2.8 billion budget, of which one half consists of direct foreign aid. The Hamas authorities, meanwhile, announced a budget of $540 million, of which $480 million is to come from outside (Iran). The dependence on foreign capital reflects perhaps the salient element shared by both Palestinian governments

    Reply

  98. Robert Bonomo says:

    As a resident of New York I was shocked to read this. I believe it borders on treason. What interests, apart from ideological or religous, do the people of New York have in promoting Israel? Hasn’t the debacle in Iraq been evidence enough of the detrimental influence of the neo-cons and AIPAC? We are fighting a war that serves America no purpose only because of the Israeli lobby’s influence. I would ask Mr. Schumer to remember the oath he took and if he is uncomfortable with it, then resign.

    Reply

  99. ... says:

    Schumer is alright with the nadines, but is he alright with americans? he represents some of what is wrong with the american political landscape…being willing to criticize obama but never israel is how many american politicians seem to operate… that is what i mean by ‘wrong’…

    Reply

  100. Carroll says:

    Well THANK YOU STEVE for letting us know what Schumer has done AGAIN.
    I will never forget his ‘a vote against Bolton is a vote against Israel.”
    Now, since I am not Steve and can be as undiplomatic and outspoken as I please I guess I will be on the phone and fax AGAIN Monday saying TRAITORS.
    I suggest others join me. Light some fires. We MUST get rid of the people like Schumer.

    Reply

  101. Jerry says:

    There is probably more then just settlements at issue for Sen Schumer.
    In the James L. Jones speech you recently highlighted appears the following:
    “The United States stands ready to do whatever is necessary to
    help the parties bridge their differences and develop the confidence needed to
    make painful compromises on behalf of peace. As we do so, we will also strongly
    support the Palestinian Authority

    Reply

  102. Craig says:

    The settlements are a war crime. Israel is a war criminal. We support Israel. What does that make us?

    Reply

  103. Robert Morrow says:

    Eleanor Clift and Pat Buchanan have both said CONGRESS IS AN ISRAELI-OCCUPIED TERRITORY.
    I agree.

    Reply

  104. DonsBlog says:

    I’ve got to wonder about a Democrat that is so
    disdainful of his own liberal party leader in
    support of the extremely conservative Israeli
    coalition government.
    The 8 years of unquestionable support by Bush
    brought on by the Christian right made absolutely no
    progress in the middle east. Maybe stepping on toes
    is the only way to get some people’s attention.

    Reply

  105. Anthony says:

    “Schumer has an Israel blind spot. ”
    And there is more where that came from… Feinstein, Lieberman etc. Progressives need to go after these people and elect alternative senators whose loyalties are to America and America only.

    Reply

  106. nadine says:

    “This is the 2nd time I know of that Schumer has publicly crossed the line when it came to zealously blaming his own government and colleagues in delicate matters of US-Israel-Palestine policy. ”
    Steve, what do you mean by “crossed the line”? Schumer swore no oath of personal loyalty to Barack Obama. He’s allowed to disagree with his Mideast Policy. He has lots of political motive to do so as well, as his internal polls must be telling him.
    And “delicacy” is one word I have never heard applied to Obama’s Mideast Policy. Obama has been as delicate as a bull in a china shop.

    Reply

  107. nadine says:

    Quinnipiac’s latest poll says that 67% of American Jews disapprove of Obama’s handling of I/P. (78% of American Jews voted for Obama in 2008). Sounds to me like Chuck Schumer wants to get reelected this November. What a shock.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *