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.”

While the current Egyptian president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, has never been friendly to Hamas, his government has objected strenuously to the Israeli campaign in the southernmost part of the Gaza Strip. Haisam Hassanein explains why:

Cairo has long been playing a double game, holding Hamas terrorists near while simultaneously trying to appear helpful to the United States and Israel. Israel taking control of Rafah threatens Egypt’s ability to exploit the chaos in Gaza, both to generate profits for regime insiders and so Cairo can pose as an indispensable mediator and preserve access to U.S. money and arms.

Egyptian security officials have looked the other way while Hamas and other Palestinian militants dug tunnels on the Egyptian-Gaza border. That gave Cairo the ability to use the situation in Gaza as a tool for regional influence and to ensure Egypt’s role in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would not be eclipsed by regional competitors such as Qatar and Turkey.

Some elements close to the Sisi regime have benefited from Hamas control over Gaza and the Rafah crossing. Media reports indicate an Egyptian company run by one of Sisi’s close allies is making hundreds of millions of dollars by taxing Gazans fleeing the current conflict.

Moreover, writes Judith Miller, the Gaza war has been a godsend to the entire Egyptian economy, which was in dire straits last fall. Since October 7, the International Monetary Fund has given the country a much-needed injection of cash, since the U.S. and other Western countries believe it is a necessary intermediary and stabilizing force. Cairo therefore sees the continuation of the war, rather than an Israeli victory, as most desirable. Hassanein concludes:

Adding to its financial incentive, the Sisi regime views the Rafah crossing as a crucial card in preserving Cairo’s regional standing. Holding it increases Egypt’s relevance to countries that want to send aid to the Palestinians and ensures Washington stays quiet about Egypt’s gross human-rights violations so it can maintain a stable flow of U.S. assistance and weaponry. . . . No serious effort to turn the page on Hamas will yield the desired results without cutting this umbilical cord between the Sisi regime and Hamas.