Speaking on the Senate floor last week, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced, "It has become clear to me: The Netanyahu coalition no longer fits the needs of Israel after October 7." As New York's Democratic senator sees it, "a new election is the only way to allow for a healthy and open decision-making process about the future of Israel." What he means is that he hopes a new Israeli government would permanently halt the counteroffensive in Gaza.
Bill Clinton admitted that in the 1996 election that first brought Netanyahu to power, "I tried to do it in a way that didn't overtly involve me." At the time, many Democrats thought that Netanyahu and his Likud party were the main obstacle to peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Despite Clinton's full-court press at Camp David, the gulf between Israeli and Palestinian demands was too wide for them to reach an agreement, even without Bibi in the room.
Jeremy Bird, Obama's 2012 national field director, worked with the Israeli activist group V15 in a failed attempt to unseat Netanyahu.
Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen asked, "Can you imagine Karl Rove going to London while George W. Bush was in office to help conservatives oust Prime Minister Tony Blair?" Even worse, the State Department gave a grant to OneVoice, the Israeli organization that became V15, and did not put any restrictions on the funding after OneVoice gave notice about its pivot to electoral politics.
Removing Netanyahu is not likely to change Israeli policy much.
A recent poll reveals that a majority of Israelis oppose a hypothetical political settlement to the current conflict that is far better for Israel than anything Hamas has offered.
No comments:
Post a Comment