Glazer wasn’t the only prominent Jewish figure who used a public platform to express moral confusion about Israel this week. While Chuck Schumer’s speech in the Senate yesterday was less egregious, his status as a senior Democratic legislator with a reputation for being pro-Israel makes it more concerning. In that speech, Schumer condemned Benjamin Netanyahu as an “obstacle to peace,” and declared that his coalition “no longer fits the needs of Israel after October 7.” Schumer seems unaware that Benny Gantz, Netanyahu’s most popular political rival, joined that coalition when the war began. Elliott Abrams comments on this “unprecedented and indefensible” criticism of a democratic ally:

Schumer seems deeply confused about what Israelis want. Prime Minister Netanyahu is very unpopular and may well lose the next election—or be tossed out sooner if he loses his majority in the Knesset. But his unpopularity is tied to accusations of corruption and last year’s judicial reform battle, not to “peace.” In fact, the Israeli populace supports the actions of the current war cabinet.

Israelis are notoriously outspoken and have a vibrant democracy. In the middle of a war the very last thing they need is for a Democratic party politician to elevate his own party’s electoral needs over Israeli national security and over Israeli democracy. This speech . . . appears to signal a continuing campaign against Netanyahu. It’s a shameful and unprecedented way to treat an ally, and an unconscionable interference in the internal politics of another democracy.

A few hours after giving the speech, Schumer tentatively walked it back, posting on X that “As a democracy, Israel has the right to choose its own leaders. But the important thing is that Israelis are given a choice.”

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.