If we could only believe this is a case of good cop – bad cop to move peace mountain. However, there is no silver lining on what Sen. Chuck Schumer has done, because he’s made Pres. Obama the bad guy on Israel, something the right has been trying unsuccessfully to do. That Schumer chose the politically conservative Jewish Nachum Segal Show to air his displeasure with Obama in public that included calling the settlement issue a “kerfuffle,” puts Chuck Schumer in the Sarah Palin “zoning issue” camp.
However, if you ever had any doubts about where Sen. Schumer’s loyalties lie, know that it is with Israel Netanyahu over United States Pres. Obama.
The Senator from AIPAC New York unloaded on Pres. Obama in the most politically destructive and odious manner, handing Netanyahu his most potent weapon against Obama, while delighting the hawk right in the U.S. Never mind that it does nothing for peace.
New York Senator Chuck Schumer harshly criticized the Obama Administration’s attempts to exert pressure on Israel today, making him the highest-ranking Democrat to object to Obama’s policies in such blunt terms.
Schumer, along with a majority of members of the House and Senate, signed on to letters politely suggesting the U.S. keep its disagreements with Israel private, a tacit objection to the administration’s very public rebuke of the Jewish State over construction in Jerusalem last month.
But Schumer dramatically sharpened his tone on the politically conservative Jewish Nachum Segal Show today, calling the White House stance to date “counter-productive” and describing his own threat to “blast” the Administration had the State Department not backed down from its “terrible” tough talk toward Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Schumer, a hawkish ally of Israel since his days as a Brooklyn Congressman, described “a battle going on inside the administration” over Middle East policy.
“This has to stop,” he said of the administration’s policy of publicly pressuring Israel to end construction in Jerusalem.
“I told the President, I told Rahm Emanuel and others in the administration that I thought the policy they took to try to bring about negotiations is counter-productive, because when you give the Palestinians hope that the United States will do its negotiating for them, they are not going to sit down and talk,” Schumer told Segal. “Palestinians don’t really believe in a state of Israel. They, unlike a majority of Israelis, who have come to the conclusion that they can live with a two-state solution to be determined by the parties, the majority of Palestinians are still very reluctant, and they need to be pushed to get there.
Is Mr. Schumer kidding? Does he not read or listen to the opinions of Arabs— Strike that. Mr. Schumer believes that Palestinians don’t matter and neither do our Arab allies, which sends a message across the Middle East that makes your hair stand on end.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has never presented himself as a serious party to peace negotiations, which is evident by his continued building of settlements that inflames the situation more every time he gives a nod to expansion. Unfortunately, what Sen. Schumer has done is confirm Israel’s bet that eventually Obama will lose out to wider public sentiments on Israel v. the Palestinians and how to get to peace. Habits are hard things to break, especially bad ones that have the same outcome every time.
However, Mr. Schumer didn’t stop with Pres. Obama. He also went after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Because hey, once you’re at a microphone and getting all this attention you might as well keep going.
But then what happened is the next day Hillary Clinton called up Netanyahu and talked very tough to him, and worse they made it public through this spokesperson, a guy named Crowley.
Poor Bibi. Hillary “talked very tough to him.” Makes you wonder how he gets up in the morning with all those mean Palestinians staring him down, too.
And a guy named Crowley? This is insulting in too many ways to count. Mr. Crowley is a distinguished expert on national security and the current Assistant Secretary. During the Clinton administration Crowley he was Special Assistant to the President of the United States for National Security Affairs and served on the staff of the National Security Council. Prior to that, he was Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. Crowley served in the Air Force for 26 years, retiring at the rank of colonel in September 1999. He is a veteran of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. During the Kosovo conflict, he was temporarily assigned to work with then NATO Secretary General Javier Solana (source).
Ah, but Schumer’s radio tantrum comes on the day Quinnipiac released a poll finding that 44% of the American public disapprove of Obama’s handling of the Israeli – Palestinian issue.
A Quinnipiac University survey released Thursday morning indicates that 35 percent of the public gives the president a thumbs up on how he’s dealing with the situation between Israel and the Palestinians, with 44 percent saying they disapprove, and just over one in five unsure.
The right is already using Schumer’s words against Pres. Obama, coming from the usual suspects at Hot Air and NRO.
Steve Clemons did a broad and systematic search to see if Sen. Schumer has ever criticized Israel the way he just did Pres. Obama. Clemons found not one instance.
This is a very public dressing down by Mr. Schumer of Pres. Obama, not to mention a serious instance of rewriting the facts on the Netanyahu government, with a Democratic senator taking sides with Israel over the U.S. president.
Sen. Schumer has done a disservice to President Obama in every way; someone who knows that a U.S. Middle East policy that solely favors Israel, even as we stay loyal friends, is not in the best interest of this country. Putting American foreign policy interests at the top of the priority list is Obama’s job, something that was just made tougher by Chuck Schumer.
This post has been edited.
Blame America first. Whose side is Schumer on?
He has the nerve to criticize HIS President in public. No, BLAST him, in public. His own party leader, while he complains about Obama criticizing Israel in public. Hypocrisy of the highest order.
Can Israel EVER be criticized or rebuked by the US Government as far as the Schumers of the world are concerned? IMO they are putting the interests of a foreign nation BEFORE that of the interests of the US. Schumer and others like him behave as if Netanyahu is their leader. Dual loyalty.
“others like him” The Dual Loyalty accusation is incredibly dangerous.
If the shoe fits……
It is *long* past time that people call out the obvious, with the cries of “incredibly dangerous” meant to silence the truth.
NOTHING is more dangerous than what Schumer has done in siding with Netanyahu against Obama, while going further by attacking and besmirching loyal diplomats, including the SoS.
What Sen Schumer has done is VERY DANGEROUS to Pres Obama and our entire country’s Middle East policy, including on Iran.
yes
Maybe that Majority Leader gig just doesn’t really appeal to ol’ Chuck.
How about “disgraceful” or “treasonous” Well, treasonous might be a stretch.
maybe
Mr. Schumer has forced a situation that necessitates calling him out.
Being judicious about it, Schumer’s comments are un-American, though I’m not saying he is even if his sentiments render him unfit to hold any leadership post in the Senate.
What exactly is “the obvious”, Taylor? Please say what you really want to say, just get it over with.
I don’t mince words or suffer fools.
The essay above says it all in plain English.
So I’ll say it for you. American Jewish politicians who criticize an American administration are doing so because they, as Jews, support Israel over the American government. Is this what you’re saying? Because if it is, I’m scared. This is McCarthyism, plain and simple. If everytime you disagreed with the government, as I”m sure you did under Bush, and under Obama, do I find something in your ethnic background to accuse you of treason/disloyalty?
I am shocked and utterly appalled at you.
oh, good grief
Have we really lowered ourselves to calling people who disagree with the American President “Un-American”? Straight out of the Palin/Rove playbook. Sad.
Liberalastheycome says:
23 April 2010 at 10:34 am
“others like him” is exactly what I mean, because there are countless others in congress who “report to AIPAC” who are just like him. Democrats & Republicans.
Why didn’t Schumer have the nerve to instead say to Netanyahu: “This ceaseless settlement building in East Jerusalem is counter productive and must stop.” Instead, he rails at HIS President.
Is that loyalty to you?
I am horrified by all of you. This is McCarthyism and Bushism and all of the terrors in between. When an American is accused of being “Un-American”, we are entering Orwellian waters.
He is supporting another nation’s policy over his own country’s, and attacking the leader of his party, and his nation at the same time. What else would you call it?
It would be the same if an Asian-American Senator came out in support for a Chinese or Japanese policy over the policy of the US. No difference. It is still Un-American, and quite frankly seditious.
And I’m sure that Harry Reid will strip Schumer of his committee chairmanships without delay… er, right
GaBuck….so this means you supported Bush and the War in Iraq, or did you support Chirac/Schroeder in opposing the war? If the latter, you were going against the policy of the US Government at the time and supporting another nation’s policies.
Taylor Marsh says:
23 April 2010 at 11:53 am
Mr. Schumer has forced a situation that necessitates calling him out.Being judicious about it, Schumer’s comments are un-American
***Have Progressives now begun calling people “Un-American” because of their political opinions? Taylor, you are beginning to scare me, seriously. Your accusations are straight out of Karl Rove’s playbook.
Wow.
I am not a United States Senator. I have not sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
Okay, mincing words, here, so all Senators who were opposed to George W. Bush’s foreign policy were “Un-American?” since they were in effect supporting the polices of France/Germany which opposed the war?
GaBuck, are you sure you’re a liberal? I didn’t think that we called people who disagreed with the government “Un-American”
Since France and Germany were not part of the coalition of the willing, this argument is superfluous.
There is quite a difference between opposing policies because you feel that they are not in America’s best interests, and opposing American policies because they not in the best interest of a foreign power that you are actively advocating for.
Like THIS is a surprise to anyone?
I’d say this is a surprise, secularh.
The setting where Schumer did it, conservative radio, makes it even worse.
How can you call Schumer the “senator from AIPAC”? This is an insult. While I disagree with him in this interview (I believe that President Obama has been a STRONG supporter of Israel thus far), you like to think that any congressman/senator who supports Israel is doing so only because of this smokey back-room conspiracy where AIPAC forces them to do so. If you look at any poll, you will see that the majority of Americans, BOTH Democrats and Republicans, LIBERALS and Conservatives, strongly support the U.S.-Israel relationship. You’d never know it by some of the crazy loons on this blog who trash Israel every chance they get, but in general the American people are strongly supportive of Israel and Congress, representing their constituents, is equally as supportive, particularly the Democrats and Speaker Pelosi. Hillary Clinton as well was and is a devout supporter of the U.S.-Israel relationship.
Right, and 70% of the American people believe in UFO’s as well.
ok….
Which means that the American public ain’t all that bright at times and can be fooled and propagandized into believing silly things. Like we needed to illegally invade and occupy Iraq 7 years ago. Or that Israel is somehow important to our national security.
Thank goodness the American public doesn’t listen to a hateful homophobe like you, Imhotep. You are stuck in the 1950s with your views on gays and ethnic minorities.
Anyone who doesn’t take AIPAC’s congressional power seriously is not to be taken seriously on US Middle East policy.
As for Clinton, as senator of NY she was like Schumer, as Imhotep notes, with regard to constituency. However, I’d like to think she has more diplomatic understanding than to so disastrously dress down a Democratic president over something as combustible as this.
AIPAC doesn’t have to work too hard, Taylor, when 70% of the American public supports its policies. Its not like they have to twist anyone’s arm. Other than the freaks on this board, most people are generally not as paranoid about Israel and understand that allies sometimes have disagreements. Additionally, 70% of Americans are not *JEWISH*.
You seem to be very strong on name-calling
Pilgrim, you are right, I apologize, should not have used the word “freaks.” Just get a little agitated when people are accusing me of being “Un-American” because I am a supporter of Israel.
TM NOTE: Please see my comment below, as LATC is misrepresenting the discussion.
I’m unsure how this will play out politically for anybody. I do know that Schumer represents one of the largest Jewish communities in the country. So the pressure put on him by the Zionists to respond must have been enormous. We have yet to hear from Boxer & Feinstein who represent the country’s second largest Jewish community, or Carl Levin who always sides with the Israelis. What we (the USA) have done in the past 40 years to reconcile the Israelis and the Palestinians has not worked. More bluntly put, it’s been a miserable failure. It’s time for a change. That the Israelis don’t want to see that change become US foreign policy says something about the Israelis real desire for peace with their neighbors. The Israelis claim that they are willing to talk directly with the Palestinians, but that the Palestinians are unwilling to sit down and talk with them. That’s not a true statement and serves only the interests of the Israelis and not the interests of peace between the sides. The Palestinians have said repeatedly that they will sit down with the Israelis in direct talks as soon as the setlement building in Arab East Jerusalem stops. Unfortunately Israel wants to control all of Jerusalem even though doing that would put them in violation of international law and several UN Resolutions. U.N. Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947 (which set up both the state of Israel and of Palestine) called for the Corpus Separatum of Jerusalem which was to be internationally administered. The Zionists rejected this part of UN Res 181 out of hand thereby voiding the entire agreement. Peace
Imhotep, why should the Palestinians be able to have preconditions prior to sitting down to talks? I’m sure that you would not require precondititons to sit down with Ahmadinejad and negotiate, so why the double standard with the Palestinians?
If the shoe was on the foot, Israel could say, “We refuse to engage in direct talks with the Palestinians until they drop the Right of Return and recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.” No one would take this seriously, as these are final-status issues. So is Jerusalem, which is why it is preposterous for the Palestinians to refuse to engage in direct talks with the Israelis.
Which preconditions are you speaking of? The ones that say that the Israelis must abide by international law and U.N. Resolutions? You and I both know that from the very founding of Israel in 1948 the Zionists have wanted a unified Jerusalem under Israeli control. They weren’t granted that concession by the world community so they have been trying to kill and colonize their way to that reality ever since. Just admit to that fact.
Oh holy Moses, LATC.
You’re seriously comparing the right to return, which is a non-starter, with ongoing settlement expansion in East Jerusalem?
Words fail.
So why can’t Israel demand that the Palestinians drop the “right of return” prior to returning to direct negotiations? If the Palestinians are going to have preconditions on settlements, why can’t Israel have preconditions on another final status issue, refugess/right of return?
Clemons did a masterful job over at Huffpo, and thank you for highlighting this story. It’s outrageous that Schumer would do such a thing. It’s not that unusual for US politicians to pander to THE LOBBY for money. That’s how this organization of foreign agents has poisoned our domestic and foreign politics for decades. Our unequivocal support for Israel has cost us $100 Billion in Foreign aid. For that money we are globally humiliated.
On the very day our envoy, George Mitchell, arrives back in Israel, Bibi does an interview in which he says Israel “does not intend” to stop building settlements in Jerusalem–pointedly humiliating the US envoy. The US response? We love Israel and we will bow and scrape even more to prove it.
The Israeli tail wagging the US dog is humiliating the United States on the world stage. We are not credible as a super-power, when a small nation-state like Israel continually and arrogantly shames us. What credibility do we hope to have in negotiations with Iran if we cannot get respect from Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1164583.html
Earlier Thursday, Netanyahu announced that Israel does not intend to comply with the American demand that it halt settlement construction in East Jerusalem.
Netanyahu’s comments were broadcast on Channel 2 TV shortly after special American envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell arrived in Israel for his first visit in six weeks.
people are accusing me of being “Un-American” because I am a supporter of Israel.
This is a scurrilous charge that is factually incorrect, as well as beneath you, LATC. Most of my readers (especially lurkers) are supporters of Israel, as I am myself. It doesn’t take a foreign policy expert to understand that the Israeli government is often her people’s own worst enemy.
Liberalastheycome says:
23 April 2010 at 1:19 pm
You cannot possibly be as naive, uninformed or as ignorant on AIPAC as your writing suggests here. AIPAC has been around since 1950, so they’ve had OVER 50 YEARS to impact this country, public opinion, as well as traditional media, which has been done by supporting only people who tow their line. What was once a very necessary organization grew into a behemoth big footing power that is now reaping a backlash for what it has sewn.
I was *very* specific about Sen. Schumer’s remarks, which you immediately ignored. To repeat:
Being judicious about it, Schumer’s comments are un-American, though I’m not saying he is…
In fact, Mr. Schumer owes Pres. Obama an apology, though in my mind that’s not nearly good enough.
I too would consider myself a supporter of Israel, notwithstanding which I also grieve for the condition of the Palestinian people.
Thank you, Pilgrim.
Too many people cannot hold two separate but equally important thoughts in their head at the same time; a true test of intelligence.
When talking about the Middle East it’s a critical value.
On another note, I’d just like to say that it’s incredibly difficult to open up discussion on these topics and allow free flowing debate when people are not grown up enough to policy themselves and be fair to others commenting.
Emotional issues require rigorous intellectual discipline. Thank you to those who manage this feat.
It would be nice to have discussions about Israel-Arab policy without comments being accused of being “un-American” This is straight out of Karl Rove/Sean Hannity’s playbook.
Taylor Marsh says:
23 April 2010 at 2:01 pm
Pilgrim says:
23 April 2010 at 2:27 pm
Well said Taylor and Pilgrim.
I would add the following, if Chuck Schumer does not prefer Israel over America, then he ought to stop talking and behaving as if he does. His words and actions forcibly suggests that he does. HE should not be trusted with the security of the United States.
What if Schumer wasn’t Jewish? I doubt we’d see the hysteria as we do from you folks. Americans are allowed to criticize their President, even if they are members of his party. Shame on you all for your Karl Rovian scare tactics.
and for what it’s worth, Obama has been a tremendous friend of Israel, as has Hillary.
LATC, you seem to care about whether he is Jewish or not. I do not give a damn. I am dealing with what he said and about whom he said it. Context. No US Senator especially in this case a Democratic senator, should take sides against their President.
LATC, I put two straightforward question to you: Do you condone what Schumer did? Yes or No?
Second, If you were in Obama’s position and Schumer did this to YOU, — yes, YOU — would you consider Schumer to be a LOYAL friend, partner and colleague?
Why are his comments “un-American”? Can a Senator not disagree with a President? What if Schumer were bashing Bush for supporting Iraq’s government? Would his comments then be “Un-American” as well?
This is a sick and unintelligent charge. You can do better.
GaBuck, you made certain assumptions about my comments in the Palin thread yesterday, so this may surprise you:
“There is quite a difference between opposing policies because you feel that they are not in America’s best interests, and opposing American policies because they not in the best interest of a foreign power that you are actively advocating for.”
Agreed, my thoughts exactly.
Seconded.
Okay Taylor, so let’s hear it out, are Jews that do not support President Obama’s policies on Israel “Un-American”? This is what you insinuate, particularly when you do not call out the Non-Jewish politicians who also criticized Obama on this issue.
I’d like to hear you dispense with the term “Un-American” completely. It is a tool of the Right Wing and frankly wreaks of fascism. The Charge does not belong on a supposedly “progressive” blog like this, and is extremely hurtful.
She does not insinuate any such a thing.
We’ve got LATC on one side, then imhotep and Noogan on the other, each on opposite extremes.
You know, Pilgrim, we’re the new Middle East middle.
…and you’re right, I did not. Cutting bait, won’t fish.
This is GaBuck
Wonk the Vote says:
23 April 2010 at 2:30 pm
Sometimes my partisan hackles get raised; That’s what happened yesterday. I have always respected your intelligence, and your thoughtful commentary.
Sometimes my partisan hackles get raised…
Boy, can I relate to that, BuckHill.
Schumer isn’t who he says he is and never has been -
Schumer likes to play the role of the big liberal from New York that always votes the right way but underneath it all he quietly works for his real owners – the big banks, Wall Street and AIPAC. Its time we all see him for who he really is. This was just a rare example of Chuck being the real Schumer.
Sadly it seems he’s in line to take Reid’s place if Reid gets toasted in November.
And the prize goes to….. –drum roll– … mwfolsom.
Nailed. It.
Senator Schumer has given the right a great christmas present. Now Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and the others will never shut up about this and Senator Schumer gave them the right a major gift they can use against the democrats. Senator Schumer is basicly taking the same talking points as Sarah Palin. I think we have two leaders president Obama and prime-minister Netanyahu and two capitals Washington DC and Jerusalem and two bodies of goovernment,the congress and the knesset. I think we should just start sending out voting ballots to Jerusalem. I am a major supporter of Isreal and I want it to live in a safe middle-east and christians, muslims, and jews its a important land to all of us and where alot of our history started and its in everyone’s interest that Isreal survive as a country but I want a fair peace-process and a two-state solution and for the arab countries to live in peace with Isreal. I think the lawmakers in this country need to tell us who is going to decide our foreign and domestic polities is it Washington DC or Jerusalem. They should just bring both Isreal and Palestine into the union.
Thanks for that, FMI.
TM NOTE: Noogan is in moderation, which is done as we can. But to be honest, if you’re in moderation you’ve earned it, so you’ll just have to chill until your comment can be approved.
On another note, I enjoy mixing it up in the comments when I can, but I will not respond to disrespectful people, which is becoming a habit around here on this topic. If I have to I’ll put anyone who is disrespectful in moderation as well.
You put it quite well up above: “Cutting bait. Won’t fish.”
Probably a good approach, in some cases.
Although, yes, it’s enjoyable to see your comments.
Stop the money, let them figure it out themselves.
As a citizen Mr, Schumer has the right to say any stupid thing he wants.
As a SENIOR Democratic SENATOR, Schumer has the OBLIGATION to support his President, his President’s policies and his country. If he has differances of opinion with the President he can certainly give voice to them INSIDE the structure of give, advize and consent with the President. Or he could resign his seat in protest.
As a DEMOCRATIC Senator he does NOT have the right to stick a shank in the President’s and the Country’s backs. He should be disciplined by the party…HARD!
Perfectly said, Secular.
Schumer was treacherous.
Amen, secularh.
I agree 100% with Taylor- it’s time to start calling out people like Schumer and remind them who they work for- the American people, not the Knesset. Schumer really crossed a line this time and his comments make it absolutely justified to question his loyalty. The people who run around condemning the “dual loyalty” question are simply trying to prevent rational discourse on the topic. The fact that Schumer would support ANY Israeli policy irrespective of how damaging, irrespective of WHO is Prime Minister while at the same time lashing out at the leader of his own party, the POTUS, raises important questions.
And no, this is in no way to suggest that Democrats are not allowed to question the POTUS publicly, as some are claiming. This is about undermining US policy and weakening our POTUS on the world stage. Notice that not a single one of these AIPAC shills has publicly said something to the effect of “well, what Netanyahu has done is arguably not helpful, but the POTUS should stand down as well…”- while I still may disagree with that, it would at least demonstrate that these folks are able to look at the situation with even an ounce of objectivity as opposed to simply having the knee-jerk response to protect Bibi at the expense of the POTUS.
Now Senator Reid has joined the fray and has written the dumbest, most condescending letter ever to Secretary Clinton:
http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=324158&
Yeah, I heard about the letter, too.
I also believe that the United States should clearly, and unequivocally, state our continuing support for Israel and reiterate the unbreakable bond between the two nations.
Holy Moses with a side of Joshua. How many frickin’ times will the Obama administration be asked to say this?
Yeah, I heard about the letter, too. From Reid’s letter:
I also believe that the United States should clearly, and unequivocally, state our continuing support for Israel and reiterate the unbreakable bond between the two nations.
Holy Moses with a side of Joshua. How many frickin’ times will the Obama administration be asked to say this?
It is frankly a degrading spectacle, as degrading as when any repugnantklaner DARE do anything but fluff for limpwithnoballs and then must make the public contrician.
Thank you Senator Reid for a wonderful letter to Secretary Clinton. As I’ve said time and time again, it is an outright lie to say that Republicans are stronger supporters of Israel than Democrats. This letter, supporting Israel and urging sanctions on the Iranian regime, is an articulate reflection of the majority of the American people’s support of Israel.
Let us hope for an immediate resumption of talks between PM Netanyahu and President Abbas and that we see a two-state solution soon so that Israeli and Palestinian children may live in peace.
After watching Mitchell in Jerusalem the other day, I think this “special relationship” needs some space. I hate to watch someone with the stature of Senator Mitchell being used by Bibi as some sort of prop – Mitchell stood there reaeffirming the “unbreakable, unshakable, steadfast” bond between the US and Israel and Bibi announces he’s formally informed our POTUS that he will never stop building in East Jerusalem.
Have you noticed that all the pressure is on the US to PROVE to Israel that the bond is “unshakable?” Why don’t they have to PROVE that to us? Why is this “special” relationship so one sided?
Whenever Senator Mitchell brings up settlements with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, apparently Lieberman hops up and storms out of the room. Can you imagine? We give them billions of dollars, advanced weapons systems, preference in defense contracts and on and on and what do we get in return? We have to continually PROVE to Israel that we are dedicated to their security? We get not so much as a “hey, thanks United States”- we get poked in the eye, we get our officials treated with disrespect and we get to watch people like Chuck Schumer add insult to injury by encouraging this BS.
At this point, I think Obama needs to pull back Mitchell and tell the State Dept. that they can communicate by phone so as to not allow more US officials to be used as a backdrop for Bibi to appeal to his right wing base. As Secretary Clinton repeatedly has said, the US can’t want peace more than the parties. Maybe we need to reduce the carbon footprint for a while and not have Mitchell jetting off to Jerusalem every week only to come back with more of nothing except bragging rights for Bibi that he stood up to those Israel-hating liberals in the Obama administration.
cut off the money. Let them fight, work, figure it out themselves.