Democrats new leader suggests John Kerry just 'emboldened extremists.' Meet your 2017 wild card.

[DonViejo]

By Aaron Blake December 29 at 12:04 PM

There is an old saying in politics: The most dangerous place in Washington is between Chuck Schumer and a camera.

And the famously press-friendly incoming Senate minority leader could find himself in front of plenty of cameras in the months ahead — but perhaps not always in a way liberals will be terribly fond of.

As of next week, Schumer is the de facto leader of the opposition, wielding the best weapon Democrats have to thwart Republican President-elect Donald Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress: The filibuster. But just how much he will use it — and how resolutely he'll stand in Trump's way — remains to be seen. Schumer himself has suggested there's plenty of room for common ground, while also talking tough about Trump.

Adding to that intrigue is Schumer's outspokenness, which was on full display Wednesday evening. Hours after Secretary of State John F. Kerry delivered a controversial speech critical of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Schumer issued a statement. It wasn't surprising that the strongly pro-Israel Schumer would be at least somewhat critical of Kerry's speech, but Schumer really didn't mince words — at all.

“While he may not have intended it, I fear Secretary Kerry, in his speech and action at the U.N., has emboldened extremists on both sides,” Schumer said, citing Palestinian attacks after Israelis withdrew from settlements in Gaza.

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/29/democrats-new-leader-suggests-john-kerry-just-emboldened-extremists-meet-your-2017-wild+card/?utm_term=.e26b1ed96244&wpisrc=nl_evening&wpmm=1

[Chasstev365]

1. He's an Apologist for Netanyahu

and I am sick of it!

[brutus smith]

7. Yes

One of the main reasons he should not lead the Senate. Shades of Joe Lieberman.

[HassleCat]

2. Schumer is a tough guy

When he criticizes Democrats. Let's see how tough he is when the chips are down.

[CentralMass]

3. Pucker up Chuck.

[guillaumeb]

4. Schumer did not mince words, but the author misleads readers by his choice of title.

From the article:

“While he may not have intended it, I fear Secretary Kerry, in his speech and action at the U.N., has emboldened extremists
on both sides,” Schumer said, citing Palestinian attacks after Israelis withdrew from settlements in Gaza.

The bold is mine and not in the original.

The author then reframes Schumer's words to imply:

So there's the incoming leader of the Democrats, suggesting a Democratic secretary of state and former fellow Democratic senator has “emboldened extremists.” That's very strong language.

Leaving out the words on both sidescompletely changes the meaning, and what Schumer actually said. This is dishonest reporting 101 and not worthy of the paper.

[gratuitous]

5. Yes, Schumer said "extremists on both sides"

But who did Schumer cite for an example of those extremists? Palestinians only. Why didn't Schumer likewise cite any extremist behavior on the Israeli side? Is there any behavior by Israelis that Schumer would characterize as extremist? When anyone says "both sides" but only finds examples from one side, it's quite likely that they don't really mean "both sides."

[guillaumeb]

6. That goes to Schumer's mindset. And given his history of support for Israel,

that point could be made. And the fact that he said "extremists on both sides" will have certain pro-Israeli people upset.

[karynnj]

10. It also raises the question of what Kerry's speech emboldens them to do

I really do not get what it could embolden the Palestinian extremists to do that they would not already do. As to the leadership, what it emboldened Abbas to do is to say he would enter peace talks if the settlements were frozen again. Note that the common international view was already that the settlements were illegal. Nor was it new US policy.

As to the Jewish extremists, they could push their representative to approve even more settlements --- but that is what they are already doing.

I think the biggest thing the speech might do is start an honest conversation on whether there is any possibility of a two state solution. Every negotiation since Oslo started has been premised on that. It is startling to hear that about half of Netanyahu's cabinet are against a two state solution. If Trump concurs with this, the entire idea of making peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis changes completely.

Schumer needs to answer how not freezing settlements is consistent with a two state solution. If he prefers settlements to a two state solution, he needs to answer what he thinks the outline of peace would look like. Everything I have read suggests just 3 alternatives - 1) removing the Palestinians from most or all of the West Bank - which is ethnic cleansing ; an apartheid state; and a binational state where all have equal rights.

I suspect that if we continue on the Trump/Netanyahu/Schumer path the only Israel I could support in any way is the binational state. I am less negative on that than Secretary Kerry, who I immensely respect.

[guillaumeb]

12. Excellent analysis in my view.

My addition is that there is a two state solution, where the Palestinian State is geographically contiguous and economically viable. But the Israelis will not even entertain the idea of a Palestinian army.

SO yes, either ethnic separation, or a one state solution.

[karynnj]

8. A better case could be made that Schumer for the last - at least 6 years has emboldened extremtists

on both sides.

He did this by emboldening the settlers throughout Obama's Presidency. He was actually to the RIGHT of Israel's policy at that time - as they agreed to freeze settlements in 2009/2010 when George Mitchell was working for a two state solution. (Being able to point to a powerful US Senator in the President's party taking this position was something the Palestinian extremists could use to argue that the US was not an honest broker and that any US brokered peace talks were bogus).

Backup:

"U.S. President Barack Obama's decision to criticize Israel over construction for Jews in Judea and Samaria was “counterproductive,” he said. America's position on Jewish communities was “to the left of the PA” at one point, he added. Schumer noted that he made his objections known at the time, both in private meetings and publicly. <snip> What Obama and America should do for peace is to make it known that America's ties with Israel cannot be broken, he said. “By giving the Palestinian and the Arab world hope that they can break the tie between the U.S. and Israel, you don't further the cause of peace, you set back the cause of peace... If they think the tie is immutable, they will say, well maybe we should throw in the towel and have some kind of peace with Israel. It's that simple.” " http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/140363

Note that this source comes from "religious Zionism" ie the settler's movement and comes out of Beit El, the settlement funded by Jared Kushner's family and by David Friedman, Trump's nominee for ambassador to Israel. There are many more mainstream sources for Schumer's many similar statements. I chose this one for a reason. THIS IS WHAT THE SETTLER'S WERE READING. At this point, they are even MORE emboldened - not by Kerry or Obama - but by Trump, Kushner, and Friedman.

In fact, Kerry's speech and the resolution support the position of the rest of the world, with possible minor exceptions. To some extent, Trump will test the Schumer "plan". With the US joined at the hip with the settler's movement (the far right even in Netanyahu's cabinet) we will see if the Palestinians "throw in the towel". I stand with Kerry in assessing that that leads to a Zionist one state solution. What exactly would the Palestinians be offered?

Kerry's speech does not represent a new US policy. What Schumer is criticizing is what Carter, Bush, Clinton, and W all supported. The NYT says this is a speech he has wanted to give since 2014. That he didn't suggests that President Obama (and Kerry) KNEW it would be politically used against Obama in 2015 .. and would put HRC in an awkward position, where disavowing Obama's policy would hurt in the primaries, but if she didn't she could have been hurt in the general election.

Now, with Schumer as the minority leader and President Obama as a lame duck, it does not surprise me that few Democrats are speaking out to support Obama and Kerry. For one, politically it has always been true that it is far more popular to be seen as "on" Israel's side than against it. It is weird, that they can trumpet their independence - like voting against sanctions on Russia after Crimea in the General Assembly, but they treat OUR veto as their God given gift to control. However, Schumer's position is consistent with his 2010 statement.

Another reason that the politics on this are against Obama is that the media has created a very positive image of Netanyahu as a dignified statesman of a beloved ally - an image is at complete variance with his image in the Israeli media. Few in America know that he used the same tactics Trump used this year - inciting people by claims that hordes of Israeli Arabs would be flooding the polls for his opponents. He also speaking to settlers, disavowed support for the 2 state solution 2 days before the election - only to state he was for it a few days after the election. So, it is no surprise that in the US, the voices of Trump, Schumer, and Netanyahu are given more prominence than the voices throughout the world backing Obama. Forgotten is that all 14 other states voted FOR the resolution we voted against.

It is scary that here - is that ONLY on a left leaning Democratic board - is there is more outrage that Obama abstained on a vote that was essentially in support of the US policy, not just under him, but under many Presidents, than there was when Netanyahu CYNICALLY took a Hamas proposal for a ceasefire to the Knesset claiming it was a US proposal. This when he was PUBLICALLY agreeing that a ceasefire was needed, while privately his cabinet felt they had not sufficiently "mowed the grass" and did not want a ceasefire at that point. When a story - like this one - is negative for Netanyahu and Israel it is buried.

Not to mention, I saw nothing on the main forums when Israel did not vote for the sanctions on Russia when they annexed Crimea. Only in articles about this UN vote, did I read that Israel actually abstained from the UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY vote on investigating war crimes committed in Syria because they were lobbying, in vain, for Russia to veto this resolution. That makes Dannon's whining speech that included that while criticizing Israel, the UN was ignoring Syria pretty hypocritical and dishonest.

[Red Mountain]

9. Schumer is sorta right.....

but he forgot to mention the extremists from both sides have been running the show for quite some time now.

I might not use the term 'emboldened'.

Maybe 'stirred up' or 'agitated' might be more accurate.

They're already pretty bold.

[TheBlackAdder]

11. You've gotta watch out when the establishment tries to push a certain nominee really hard.