We are tempted to refer to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s call for the ouster of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his coalition as “election interference” — but that would require the existence of an actual election. Given that there are currently no elections scheduled in Israel, what Schumer did on Thursday was nothing short of calling for the collapse of the democratically elected government of a close American ally during a time of war.
This is stunning and outrageous. It is also an indication of just how hard it is to actively support Israel in today’s Democratic Party.
Schumer, in a speech on the Senate floor, argued that the only way for lasting peace and security for Israel is a two-state solution, which Netanyahu opposes. As a result, Schumer lumped together Netanyahu and Hamas as two of the four biggest obstacles to peace in the region (the others being “radical right-wing Israelis” and Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas). He then argued that “the Netanyahu coalition no longer fits the needs of Israel after October 7” and said there should be a new election to replace him.
The idea of two states living peacefully side by side, at this point in time, is a fantasy. It’s something that politicians and diplomats from around the world like to talk about so they have something solution-oriented to say that is sympathetic to the desire for self-determination on both sides of the conflict. But it is completely detached from reality on the ground.
Arabs rejected the idea of a state at least five times when it was offered to them — as long ago as 1937 and as recently as 2008 — because ultimately, they could not accept the permanent existence of a Jewish state. Currently, nearly three-quarters of Palestinians oppose a two-state solution.
Meanwhile, the hardened stance of Palestinians has eroded Israeli support for a two-state solution in the past decade. After October 7, support for the idea cratered further, and now two-thirds of Israelis oppose the idea. This is sensible. Giving Palestinians a state now would suggest that the horrific attacks were rewarded, and it would give Palestinians the ability to launch attacks that could be even worse. Polls show that about three in four Palestinians supported the massacres.
To sum up, if Netanyahu is ousted as Schumer has called for, no Israeli leader who replaces him would be able to negotiate a two-state solution and remain in power. And even if Israeli public opinion miraculously changed, there is no partner on the other side for a two-state solution.
Beyond being an egregious overstep, Schumer’s call for the collapse of the Israeli government, ironically, only serves to help Netanyahu. Whatever their problems with him, Netanyahu is strongest among Israelis when he can argue that he is standing up to tremendous external pressure to achieve Israel’s war aims of destroying Hamas and preventing a repeat of October 7. Whatever their differences on Thursday, Israeli politicians from across the spectrum criticized Schumer’s interference. Benny Gantz, Netanyahu’s likely opponent in the next election, said, “Israel is a robust democracy, and only its citizens will decide its future and leadership. Any external interference on the matter is counterproductive and unacceptable.”
Schumer is likely savvy enough to have anticipated this. However, he is dealing with the constraints of a modern Democratic Party that is increasingly hostile toward Israel. To feel comfortable criticizing Hamas and claiming to support Israel’s war aims (as he did in the speech), he is using attacks on Netanyahu as a cover. Like President Biden, he is trying to have it both ways by saying his problem is with Netanyahu rather than Israel.
Netanyahu was facing his fair share of political problems domestically before October 7. Then, despite having run as the candidate who would keep the nation safe, he presided over the worst terrorist attack in Israel’s history. The event brought into question over a decade of his policies toward Hamas and Gaza and exposed egregious intelligence failures. Whether his government deserves to fall, however, is up to Israelis to decide. So is the timing of that reckoning.
Instead of butting into Israeli domestic politics, Schumer would do well to confront the anti-Israel radicals within his own party.