… is a continuation of the Obama administration’s demonization of Netanyahu. In that sense, it should come as no surprise. Not only is it a political move to placate the Democrats’ anti-Israel anti-Jew pro-Hamas wing, but dislike of Netanyahu has been a staple of Democrat thought even among those Democrats who basically support Israel. Think of it this way: Netanyahu equals Trump in their eyes – if not exactly, then approximately.

Schumer certainly wasn’t acting on his own. He is merely the mouthpiece for a long-held Democrat policy. But let’s examine what he actually said:

“The Netanyahu coalition no longer fits the needs of Israel after October 7. The world has changed – radically – since then, and the Israeli people are being stifled right now by a governing vision that is stuck in the past,” says Schumer.

It is, of course, the Democrats who have lost their way and who are clinging to “a governing vision that is stuck in the past” – that is, the fiction of a 2-state solution with a Palestinian leadership that merely wants its own small state rather than to utterly destroy the Jewish one as well as kill all Jews and (with other radical jihadis) take over Western Europe as well.

Next:

Netanyahu has “lost his way, putting himself in coalition with far-right extremists like [Finance Minister] Bezalel Smotrich and [National Security Minister] Itamar Ben-Gvir.”

“Extremist Palestinians and extremist Israelis seek the same goal: from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, they aim to push the other from the land,” Schumer adds.

Here Schumer is equating “extremist Palestinians” with “extremist Israelis” when the two are very very different. First of all, there are the numbers. Gaza’s government is run by murderous terrorists who are in charge, and the West Bank is only nominally better. These jihadis have the support of the vast majority of the Palestinian population. They speak openly and proudly of murdering Jews as one of their goals, and for decades have perpetrated widespread and repeated murder and mayhem in Israel, limited only by Israeli defenses. On October 7, those Israeli defenses failed, and the result was a horrific barbarous murder and torture spree that killed 1200 in cold blood (violating a ceasefire, by the way), up close and personal. These acts were defended and applauded by the Palestinian people in figures that are above 70% of the population. And the goal is to do it again and again, and obliterate the single Jewish state in the entire world. Arab countries have no Jews in them, so most of the Middle East is already free of Jews and controlled by Arabs, but the Palestinians – who are essentially indistinguishable from their Egyptian and Jordanian neighbors – refuse to be absorbed into that greater Arab/Muslim world. No Arab or Muslim nation wants the Palestinians because of their destructive and jihadi ways, and their history of destabilizing (or attempting to destabilize) countries that took them in.

In Israel, there are indeed some people on the right who would like to drive the Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank and have them settle elsewhere. Such people do not control the government. However, it is an understandable position, considering the fact that the vast majority of Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank support the destruction of Israel and the murder of the Jews. Who would want such neighbors, neighbors whom Jordan and Egypt despise as well? In addition, there are two million Arab citizens of Israel who aren’t going anywhere.

So what is it that Smotrich – one of those who were criticized by Schumer – has been saying [quotes from back in January, for example]?:

… Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich on Wednesday reiterated his support for encouraging “voluntary emigration” of the Strip’s population to other countries as part of his postwar vision.

The leader of the far-right Religious Zionism party claimed in a statement that “more than 70 percent of the Israeli public today supports” encouraging emigration as “a humanitarian solution,” but did not provide a source for this statistic.

A resettlement policy is necessary, he said, because “a small country like ours cannot afford a reality where four minutes away from our communities there is a hotbed of hatred and terrorism, where two million people wake up every morning with aspiration for the destruction of the State of Israel and with a desire to slaughter and rape and murder Jews wherever they are.”

The other man criticized by Schumer in his speech, Ben-Gvir, agrees. Note that they don’t seem to be advocating any sort of change for the Arab Israelis; just those in Gaza and the West Bank. He is also saying it would be voluntary and “encouraged” rather than forced or accomplished by violence. I think it’s an understandable wish, considering the murderous impulses of the vast majority of the Palestinians residing in those places. And it certainly would be nice if they all picked up and left voluntarily and were accepted elsewhere. I believe the reality, however, is that this would never happen. They will never leave voluntarily, and no one else wants them. Plus, Netanyahu isn’t in accord with either of the two.

Schumer also said this:

If Prime Minister Netanyahu’s current coalition remains in power after the war begins to wind down, and continues to pursue dangerous and inflammatory policies that test existing US standards for assistance, then the United States will have no choice but to play a more active role in shaping Israeli policy by using our leverage to change the present course.

What chutzpah. Talk about election interference! But that’s the legacy of Obama, as well. But what also is strange about that statement is its time-travel aspects: Schumer first talks about something that might happen after the war “begins to wind down” – which probably will take quite a few months, by my estimation – and then says that if that happens, the administration will use its leverage “to change the present course.” It doesn’t make sense on the face of it, except for its threat aspect – which is what it is.

Even the more “moderate” Israeli politicians weren’t keen on Schumer’s statements, nor of course were Netanyahu and his party:

[National Unity party chairman Minister Benny Gantz said that] “… Israel is a strong democracy, and only its citizens will determine its leadership and future. Any external intervention in the matter is incorrect and unacceptable.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Likud strongly condemned Schumer’s speech, saying, “Israel is not a banana republic but an independent and proud democracy that elected Prime Minister Netanyahu. Prime Minister Netanyahu leads a determined policy that is supported by a huge majority of the people.”

“Contrary to Schumer’s remarks, the Israeli public supports a complete victory over Hamas, rejects any international dictate to establish a Palestinian terrorist state, and opposes the return of the Palestinian Authority to Gaza. We expect Senator Schumer to respect the elected government of Israel and not undermine it. This is always true, ll the more so in times of war,” the Likud stated.

Earlier, former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said that “Regardless of our political positions, we strongly oppose external political interference in Israel’s internal affairs. We are an independent nation, not a banana republic. The danger of terrorism is on the way to the West and it would be good if they would help Israel in its justified war. In the long run, they are defending themselves as well.”

Meanwhile, Biden prepares to give Iran ten billion dollars:

The Biden administration on Wednesday reapproved a sanctions waiver that unlocks upwards of $10 billion in frozen funds for the Iranian government, according to a copy of the notice submitted to Congress late Wednesday and reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon.

The sanctions waiver—which has drawn fierce GOP opposition on Capitol Hill—allows Iraq to transfer electricity payments to Iran via third-party countries. The sanctions waiver was last approved by the Biden administration in November and set to expire this month, putting the White House in a tight position as a mounting chorus of GOP lawmakers express concern about sanctions being bypassed. The authority granted in the latest waivers allows Iraq to convert dinars into Euros and transfer payments into Iranian banks accounts in Oman.

What a wonderful idea.

More:

While the State Department maintains the funds can only be accessed by Iran to pay for humanitarian supplies, like food and medicine, critics of the sanctions waiver argue that money is fungible, and that the waiver frees up cash for Iran to spend on its global terrorism operations. …

“Under these waivers, no money has been permitted to enter Iran,” the [State Department] official maintained. “Any notion to the contrary is false and misleading. These funds, which are held abroad in third countries, can only be used for transactions for the purchase of food, agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, and other non-sanctionable transactions. The money goes straight to the trusted vendor or financial institution in another country. The money never touches Iran.” …

Iran, the [Republican] lawmakers argued, “has a history of lying about humanitarian transactions. There is no reason to think that they will not try to skirt these restrictions again. Additionally, money is fungible, and the waiver and subsequent transfer will free up billions in funds that Iran can now spend on its terrorist proxies, nuclear activities, and military.”

I don’t think even the State Department is so stupid as to think this doesn’t free up money for Iran to use on its favorite pastime: jihadi operations in Israel and elsewhere.