Thank you for this analysis! Very helpful to read, as I'm very unfamiliar with Schumer's early political career. And the contrast between Schumer's sharp criticism of Netanyahu vs Fetterman's unconditional support is extremely intriguing, to say the least…
Schumer was a Fetterman-level Israel hawk for his entire life. He's also a weathervane, and has evolved on many issues, and I think, as a smart politician, he sees that Netanyahu has crossed too many lines. He also has some standing to do this as a Jewish Israel hawk. The question, of course, is whether this changes anything on the ground. I don't know.
Fetterman/Torres Democrat here. Death of innocents is awful but Israel does not have a partner for peace in Palestine and must continue to eradicate Hamas. A ceasefire just means more of the same BS since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005.
My definition of “the death of innocents is awful” is different than yours. When 29,000 Palestinians have been killed as an act of retaliation by Israel, it is clearly no longer about eradicating Hamas but about eradicating an entire population of people.
If they wanted to eradicate the entire population, they could have. They announce with flyers where they’re bombing. They send aid. No country in history has been so conscious of civilian deaths against the very people who started the war.
Still waiting for an American Zionist to explain to me why their preferred in-group has a right to return to lands where they haven't lived in generations, but other groups, like say, I dunno, native Americans, do not have the same right to team up with a powerful foreign nation and reclaim their land.
Been asking this question for 20+ years, have yet to receive a single answer. Not one.
There are literally hundreds of excellent books on this very complex topic! Do some research and get reading. It’s a fascinating history.
TLDR version - massive discrimination against Jews and pogroms (look it up) throughout Europe and the Middle East. Zionist movement starts in mid 1800s with the radical idea that “hey! Maybe everyone would stop trying to kill us all the time if we had our own place to live. How shout our historic homeland which we were violently kicked out off?
Fast forward 80 years. The holocaust happens. My grandfather, who came here is as a refugee just before the war from Hungary, lost everyone he knew, except for one young cousin. Jewish refugees are everywhere. No one will take us. The US won’t take Jews. Ships of refugees are just floating in the Mediterranean.
So they go to the one place the can. The world sees the the Jews need a homeland to be safe. The UN voted votes for the partition of Palestine. It’s a terrible situation - lots of violence on both sides. Arab states invite new Israel with overwhelming force. Israel wins. Lots of Arabs are expelled from Israel. Lots of Jews are expelled from Arab states and only have one place to go.
So it’s a complex story and you should learn about it.
Europeans want land, drive off the indigenous population, brutally oppress them, then cries that they are the victims when the prisoners of the open air concentration camp fight back against those who imprison them.
Bonus points for rationalizing killing tens of thousands of children and civilians because the people fighting back against their captors are "using human shields" ie, being trapped in an open air concentration camp.
But, tell me again how native Americans didn't experience discrimination and genocide.
The simple fact of the matter is that like any bigot, you believe that your preferred in-group is entitled to special rights and privileges that you don't extent to other groups.
So why shouldn't the native Americans team up with China and take back their land?
I have found, almost without exception, that when people say, "it's complicated!" they are really saying, "I have double standards that I can't justify!"
Comparing Jews to European settlers in the Americans is beyond ludicrous. Even putting aside the fact that nearly half the population of Israel are Mizrahi Jews (from the Middle East and North Africa).
Anyway, your antisemitism is pathetic. That said, I graciously recommend you so some more reading.
Weird how I can express my morality clearly, with reference to any specific group because I am not a racist, and believe that human rights are universal, and not limited to my preferred in-group.
I also noticed that you have not even bothered address my central point - why is it that your preferred in-group is entitled to ethnic cleansing to reclaim their traditional homeland, while others like the native Americans are not?
I understand why you refuse to address this, because it is clear and unambiguous.
I’m a fool for sticking my nose into a fist fight, but the vision of Jews without any homeland was widely accepted and arguably broadly defensible until after the six day war, but when Jewish settlers began colonizing the occupied territories ca. 1970, the world was confronted with a different scenario. I don’t understand how StanleyTwoBrix can ignore this and I can’t understand how Mr Katz and AS can ignore that there were two different Israels with different relations to international law before and after the six day war. Sorry to intrude on your melee.
1) tell me, what is a "homeland"? I mean, specifically.
Does everyone get one or just your preferred in-group? Why does your preferred in-group deserve one, but the Palestinians don't?
As I have brought up before, how come Zionist never seem to think that Native Americans don't deserve the same rights as their preferred in-group.
2) Citizenship based on ethnicity is apartheid. Apartheid is bad.
Citizenship based on religion is theocracy. Theocracy is also bad.
I do enjoy listening to people fashioning logic pretzels trying to explain how Israel need to be controlled by their preferred in-group, but also that the rights of people not in their preferred in-group are totally respected.
3) how can I ignore that were were two Israels?
I'm concerned with the one we're giving bombs to so they can murder children. Which one are you talking about?
4) I notice you keep dodging this question, probably because it should how threadbare your arguments are - if your preferred in-group has the right to receive military support from foreign nations to drive out the current population to reclaim their traditional lands, so not the Native Americans have an equal right to ally themselves with China and Russia to reclaim THEIR traditional lands?
I’m a fool for sticking my nose into a fist fight, but the vision of Jews without any homeland was widely accepted and arguably broadly defensible until after the six day war, but when Jewish settlers began colonizing the occupied territories ca. 1970, the world was confronted with a different scenario. I don’t understand how StanleyTwoBrix can ignore this and I can’t understand how Mr Katz and AS can ignore that there were two different Israels with different relations to international law before and after the six day war. Sorry to intrude on your melee.
thanks for covering the bases. I was astounded by Schumer's strongtalk--so unexpected, and so clear in its denunciation if not in its recommendations. Think of that! a Jew from deepest Brooklyn...home of the settlers, and every other type of zionist-leaning Jew, himself your standard nabe politician, sounding like someone from Jewish Voice for Peace. sort of. Except of course, he is talking, as McConnell noted, to Israelis, who loathe Bibi and may hear Schumer as saying just do this--we're behind you. A different Dem route than calling for a ceasefire or an end to US military aid, and perhaps a signal to Bibi that Biden might be ventriloquizing here.
Sorry but Brooklyn, “home of the settlers, and every other type for Zionist leaning Jew”? What is that supposed to mean? You do realize that most Jews are zionists, including left-leaning ones like myself, and most also hate the settler movement. Please don’t conflate the two, please present your point without anti antisemitic sneering about “types of. Zionist Jews.”
This poses the question nicely but does the NRA depend on commanding a plurality of voters? I’ll believe that the winds are shifting if the heavy guns being aimed by AIPAC miss their targets in the next election. It won’t depend on winning over voters or winning moral arguments about Zionism.
1) I'm glad that Schumer spoke out against Netanyahu. He has been a terrible leader and anyone who cares about israel should want to see him gone.
2) I think it's wrong to assume that any Israeli leader would have acted differently from Netanyahu against Hamas/Gaza after the October 7th attacks.
These two points are logically consistent, perhaps nuanced, but vitally important to consider. In other words, one can think that Netanyahu pursued a cynical and ultimately tragic policy up until October 7th, but the military reaction to October 7th is not Netanyahu's but Israel's.
I wonder if Schumer sent a draft of his speech over to the WH. It seems like a really good ‘flag’ with which to test running room from AIPAC orthodoxy, as well as sending a message to Netanyahu’s opponents in 🇮🇱 that they can expect Washington’s support when they make their move.
If Schumer was a stock I would sell him short. The community has the means to start bringing ideas forward that he is not a successful on going business. I remember there was a Ohio senator who made some mild criticisms of Israel and he lost his seat in the next election.
May we at least have a day of gratitude for brave words before we start casting about for ill omens? You augur downfall before you even praise the movement forward...do you think there is some shadowy cabal at work? I think you rather pray there is, that you may wallow in crude cynicism & in this callow idea of predestination.
Men don't live forever, & before they die, they usually like to retire, & before that, they usually like to feel they have taken their stand, & done their good -- let us all remember McCain's thumb!
First of all, I appreciate that Ross Barkan offers this forum for a subject that people used to avoid. I appreciate your response because I value the back and forth of political discussion. I’ve been following the issue of Israel/zionism/Palestine since the mid 60s and I think that much of what you write has been more or less in conformity with my understanding since around 1970. I’m just amazed at your obsessive sense that you discovered these things and everyone else refuses to see what you see. Yes, the comparison with American white settlers genocidally eliminating natives is very apt. So what are the pragmatic conclusions you draw from it? What do we do about it? Are you and I going to dismantle our homes and go back where we came from? Is it possible that you expect me to share your zeal and interpret my equanimity as disagreement? I spent much of my career in Germany and Austria among the heirs of the Nazi state. Despite my thorough anti-Fascism I learned to respect nuances. I also saw the marks of our fire-bombing of workers (the least pro-Nazi Germans), women, and children. All of this should reinforce our opposition to the genocidal bombing of Gaza; but as an American I don’t feel that I should engage in self-congratulatory moralizing. Israelis aren’t the only ones whose hands are dirty. So, I just don’t get what you want to hear.
I'm glad Schumer said what he said. I agree with him. But I'm not sure Torres and Fetterman are the dinosaurs you make them out to be. I just got an invitation to an event for two young candidates for Congress (one in NY and one in MD) with Ritchie Torres as the draw. (I'm one of the many people he has blocked on Twitter/X so he wouldn't be a draw for me). Also, while you refer to the Orthodox population as "vanishingly small," it is a growing population that has an impact in electoral politics in NY, particularly NYC as we saw in 2021 (with election of Adams) and 2022 (with Dan Goldman's win in the primary). https://www.jpr.org.uk/insights/one-seven-all-jews-are-strictly-orthodox-2040-it-will-be-one-five
My point is beyond NY and maybe a part of PA, this is not a meaningfully large bloc. Even in NYC, the Orthodox vote gets a bit overrated. They bloc vote usually and can matter in very close races, like Goldman's, but it's a misnomer they decided 2021. The Orthodox actually split between Adams and Yang. Yang did well in Boro Park, got one of the Satmar factions in Williamsburg. Adams ran stronger in Midwood. If Yang didn't court the Orthodox at all, he would've ran better overall.
Thank you for this analysis! Very helpful to read, as I'm very unfamiliar with Schumer's early political career. And the contrast between Schumer's sharp criticism of Netanyahu vs Fetterman's unconditional support is extremely intriguing, to say the least…
Schumer was a Fetterman-level Israel hawk for his entire life. He's also a weathervane, and has evolved on many issues, and I think, as a smart politician, he sees that Netanyahu has crossed too many lines. He also has some standing to do this as a Jewish Israel hawk. The question, of course, is whether this changes anything on the ground. I don't know.
Fetterman/Torres Democrat here. Death of innocents is awful but Israel does not have a partner for peace in Palestine and must continue to eradicate Hamas. A ceasefire just means more of the same BS since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005.
My definition of “the death of innocents is awful” is different than yours. When 29,000 Palestinians have been killed as an act of retaliation by Israel, it is clearly no longer about eradicating Hamas but about eradicating an entire population of people.
If they wanted to eradicate the entire population, they could have. They announce with flyers where they’re bombing. They send aid. No country in history has been so conscious of civilian deaths against the very people who started the war.
How dare the colonized fight against their colonizers!
Still waiting for an American Zionist to explain to me why their preferred in-group has a right to return to lands where they haven't lived in generations, but other groups, like say, I dunno, native Americans, do not have the same right to team up with a powerful foreign nation and reclaim their land.
Been asking this question for 20+ years, have yet to receive a single answer. Not one.
Maybe it’s because it’s not worth our time trying to convince you that Jews are worthy of a safe homeland.
Native Americans don't? LOLZ.
There are literally hundreds of excellent books on this very complex topic! Do some research and get reading. It’s a fascinating history.
TLDR version - massive discrimination against Jews and pogroms (look it up) throughout Europe and the Middle East. Zionist movement starts in mid 1800s with the radical idea that “hey! Maybe everyone would stop trying to kill us all the time if we had our own place to live. How shout our historic homeland which we were violently kicked out off?
Fast forward 80 years. The holocaust happens. My grandfather, who came here is as a refugee just before the war from Hungary, lost everyone he knew, except for one young cousin. Jewish refugees are everywhere. No one will take us. The US won’t take Jews. Ships of refugees are just floating in the Mediterranean.
So they go to the one place the can. The world sees the the Jews need a homeland to be safe. The UN voted votes for the partition of Palestine. It’s a terrible situation - lots of violence on both sides. Arab states invite new Israel with overwhelming force. Israel wins. Lots of Arabs are expelled from Israel. Lots of Jews are expelled from Arab states and only have one place to go.
So it’s a complex story and you should learn about it.
It's not that complex a story:
Europeans want land, drive off the indigenous population, brutally oppress them, then cries that they are the victims when the prisoners of the open air concentration camp fight back against those who imprison them.
Bonus points for rationalizing killing tens of thousands of children and civilians because the people fighting back against their captors are "using human shields" ie, being trapped in an open air concentration camp.
But, tell me again how native Americans didn't experience discrimination and genocide.
The simple fact of the matter is that like any bigot, you believe that your preferred in-group is entitled to special rights and privileges that you don't extent to other groups.
So why shouldn't the native Americans team up with China and take back their land?
I have found, almost without exception, that when people say, "it's complicated!" they are really saying, "I have double standards that I can't justify!"
Comparing Jews to European settlers in the Americans is beyond ludicrous. Even putting aside the fact that nearly half the population of Israel are Mizrahi Jews (from the Middle East and North Africa).
Anyway, your antisemitism is pathetic. That said, I graciously recommend you so some more reading.
Weird how I can express my morality clearly, with reference to any specific group because I am not a racist, and believe that human rights are universal, and not limited to my preferred in-group.
I also noticed that you have not even bothered address my central point - why is it that your preferred in-group is entitled to ethnic cleansing to reclaim their traditional homeland, while others like the native Americans are not?
I understand why you refuse to address this, because it is clear and unambiguous.
I’m a fool for sticking my nose into a fist fight, but the vision of Jews without any homeland was widely accepted and arguably broadly defensible until after the six day war, but when Jewish settlers began colonizing the occupied territories ca. 1970, the world was confronted with a different scenario. I don’t understand how StanleyTwoBrix can ignore this and I can’t understand how Mr Katz and AS can ignore that there were two different Israels with different relations to international law before and after the six day war. Sorry to intrude on your melee.
1) tell me, what is a "homeland"? I mean, specifically.
Does everyone get one or just your preferred in-group? Why does your preferred in-group deserve one, but the Palestinians don't?
As I have brought up before, how come Zionist never seem to think that Native Americans don't deserve the same rights as their preferred in-group.
2) Citizenship based on ethnicity is apartheid. Apartheid is bad.
Citizenship based on religion is theocracy. Theocracy is also bad.
I do enjoy listening to people fashioning logic pretzels trying to explain how Israel need to be controlled by their preferred in-group, but also that the rights of people not in their preferred in-group are totally respected.
3) how can I ignore that were were two Israels?
I'm concerned with the one we're giving bombs to so they can murder children. Which one are you talking about?
4) I notice you keep dodging this question, probably because it should how threadbare your arguments are - if your preferred in-group has the right to receive military support from foreign nations to drive out the current population to reclaim their traditional lands, so not the Native Americans have an equal right to ally themselves with China and Russia to reclaim THEIR traditional lands?
I'm not trolling. I would love to hear your answers to my questions. They are asked honestly, and I would like an honest answer.
I’m a fool for sticking my nose into a fist fight, but the vision of Jews without any homeland was widely accepted and arguably broadly defensible until after the six day war, but when Jewish settlers began colonizing the occupied territories ca. 1970, the world was confronted with a different scenario. I don’t understand how StanleyTwoBrix can ignore this and I can’t understand how Mr Katz and AS can ignore that there were two different Israels with different relations to international law before and after the six day war. Sorry to intrude on your melee.
thanks for covering the bases. I was astounded by Schumer's strongtalk--so unexpected, and so clear in its denunciation if not in its recommendations. Think of that! a Jew from deepest Brooklyn...home of the settlers, and every other type of zionist-leaning Jew, himself your standard nabe politician, sounding like someone from Jewish Voice for Peace. sort of. Except of course, he is talking, as McConnell noted, to Israelis, who loathe Bibi and may hear Schumer as saying just do this--we're behind you. A different Dem route than calling for a ceasefire or an end to US military aid, and perhaps a signal to Bibi that Biden might be ventriloquizing here.
Sorry but Brooklyn, “home of the settlers, and every other type for Zionist leaning Jew”? What is that supposed to mean? You do realize that most Jews are zionists, including left-leaning ones like myself, and most also hate the settler movement. Please don’t conflate the two, please present your point without anti antisemitic sneering about “types of. Zionist Jews.”
This poses the question nicely but does the NRA depend on commanding a plurality of voters? I’ll believe that the winds are shifting if the heavy guns being aimed by AIPAC miss their targets in the next election. It won’t depend on winning over voters or winning moral arguments about Zionism.
Hi Ross,
I think there are two separate points or issues.
1) I'm glad that Schumer spoke out against Netanyahu. He has been a terrible leader and anyone who cares about israel should want to see him gone.
2) I think it's wrong to assume that any Israeli leader would have acted differently from Netanyahu against Hamas/Gaza after the October 7th attacks.
These two points are logically consistent, perhaps nuanced, but vitally important to consider. In other words, one can think that Netanyahu pursued a cynical and ultimately tragic policy up until October 7th, but the military reaction to October 7th is not Netanyahu's but Israel's.
I wonder if Schumer sent a draft of his speech over to the WH. It seems like a really good ‘flag’ with which to test running room from AIPAC orthodoxy, as well as sending a message to Netanyahu’s opponents in 🇮🇱 that they can expect Washington’s support when they make their move.
it's very possible, and wouldn't surprise me
If Schumer was a stock I would sell him short. The community has the means to start bringing ideas forward that he is not a successful on going business. I remember there was a Ohio senator who made some mild criticisms of Israel and he lost his seat in the next election.
May we at least have a day of gratitude for brave words before we start casting about for ill omens? You augur downfall before you even praise the movement forward...do you think there is some shadowy cabal at work? I think you rather pray there is, that you may wallow in crude cynicism & in this callow idea of predestination.
Men don't live forever, & before they die, they usually like to retire, & before that, they usually like to feel they have taken their stand, & done their good -- let us all remember McCain's thumb!
excellent column Schumer is in an impossible position.
First of all, I appreciate that Ross Barkan offers this forum for a subject that people used to avoid. I appreciate your response because I value the back and forth of political discussion. I’ve been following the issue of Israel/zionism/Palestine since the mid 60s and I think that much of what you write has been more or less in conformity with my understanding since around 1970. I’m just amazed at your obsessive sense that you discovered these things and everyone else refuses to see what you see. Yes, the comparison with American white settlers genocidally eliminating natives is very apt. So what are the pragmatic conclusions you draw from it? What do we do about it? Are you and I going to dismantle our homes and go back where we came from? Is it possible that you expect me to share your zeal and interpret my equanimity as disagreement? I spent much of my career in Germany and Austria among the heirs of the Nazi state. Despite my thorough anti-Fascism I learned to respect nuances. I also saw the marks of our fire-bombing of workers (the least pro-Nazi Germans), women, and children. All of this should reinforce our opposition to the genocidal bombing of Gaza; but as an American I don’t feel that I should engage in self-congratulatory moralizing. Israelis aren’t the only ones whose hands are dirty. So, I just don’t get what you want to hear.
I'm glad Schumer said what he said. I agree with him. But I'm not sure Torres and Fetterman are the dinosaurs you make them out to be. I just got an invitation to an event for two young candidates for Congress (one in NY and one in MD) with Ritchie Torres as the draw. (I'm one of the many people he has blocked on Twitter/X so he wouldn't be a draw for me). Also, while you refer to the Orthodox population as "vanishingly small," it is a growing population that has an impact in electoral politics in NY, particularly NYC as we saw in 2021 (with election of Adams) and 2022 (with Dan Goldman's win in the primary). https://www.jpr.org.uk/insights/one-seven-all-jews-are-strictly-orthodox-2040-it-will-be-one-five
My point is beyond NY and maybe a part of PA, this is not a meaningfully large bloc. Even in NYC, the Orthodox vote gets a bit overrated. They bloc vote usually and can matter in very close races, like Goldman's, but it's a misnomer they decided 2021. The Orthodox actually split between Adams and Yang. Yang did well in Boro Park, got one of the Satmar factions in Williamsburg. Adams ran stronger in Midwood. If Yang didn't court the Orthodox at all, he would've ran better overall.