Could Schumer’s broadside against Bibi have the Trump Effect of backfiring on him?

Chuck Schumer was a famous “no” on the Iran deal just 9 short years ago, but now he’s reliably pro-Hamas—what other possible reason might be for this remarkable shift, other than appeasing the hard-left wing of the party?

The cynicism of it is truly breathtaking.

His hometown tabloid, The New York Post, just came right out and said it in their editorial headline: “Chuck Schumer’s shameful Netanyahu-blaming is all about serving Democratic Party interests”.

Why is this significant? Because back in 2015 during the height of the fight over then-President Obama’s Iran Deal, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was described by his hometown “paper of record” (The New York Times) as the most influential Jewish voice in Congress, and was threatened by the White House for being a “no” vote. In fact, then-White House “Spokesman Josh Earnest call[ed] [his] defiance on nuclear deal ‘not particularly surprising’ and says it may cost him party leadership in Senate” which, obviously, did not happen.

There’s also the little matter of “not bossing other countries around,” or words to that effect, once uttered by The One, and once regarded as (nominally, anyway) The Obama Doctrine. Though, there always seemed to be a “but Bibi” clause in it; Bibi Netanyahu, who was famously treated shabbily at every possible opportunity by one, Barack Hussein Obama.

Add to that the little matter of not kicking an ally when he’s down.

The last thing in the world any country needs when it is at war, and surrounded on all sides — literally, geographically — by the enemy, is to have a United States senator, much less this guy, call for yet more disruption, more chaos, when you have all you can do to simply keep your people alive.

Chuck Schumer is only the “most prominent” Jewish voice in the Senate, representing the largest population of Jews outside of Israel anywhere on earth, so when he opines on all matters Israel, it matters.

The New York Times opines this morning that “the broad contours” of Israel’s wartime policy won’t change, and that Schumer’s broadside could actually have the opposite than intended effect: cleave his fellow countrymen closer to him rather than drive a wedge between them. We’ve seen that happen with all the lawfare against Trump. We shall see here.

Image: Public domain.