The recent intervention by Chuck Schumer in an ally’s internal affairs during a time of war is deeply concerning.

While criticism may be justified of Netanyahu and of Israel for prioritizing preventing Hamas from benefiting from food distribution over humanitarian concerns, the mistake lies in focusing almost exclusively on the democratically elected leader of an ally, as if he and his country are substantially to blame for the Gaza crisis.

The logic suggests that terrorists in a densely populated country can attack with impunity by hiding behind civilians and that they also will be afforded the additional protection of political do-gooders.

The anti-Netanyahu sentiment that originated at student and Muslim rallies has permeated mainstream editorial writers. It is challenging to recall a situation where the victim of a vicious attack is told not only to consider the humanitarian concerns of its adversary but also to wage war with an eye on post-conflict consequences.

The senator’s remarks, seemingly aimed at pleasing his base or appeasing progressive Democrats, have only added to this misguided narrative. If the good intention is truly about stopping the Rafah invasion, it has only produced a more unified Israeli public and government determination not to be deterred by those giving lessons.

Moreover, by targeting Netanyahu the need for a unified international effort to come to the aid of Gaza’s population is neglected.

Instead of political posturing, a focus on factual analysis is imperative.

Democratic nations cannot be expected to fight wars under greater limitations than their adversaries. Israel, in particular, faces a double standard because it is expected, unlike its neighbors, to fight a war limited by humanitarian concerns.

All the critics forget too quickly that Hamas had as its single strategy against Israel, the killing of innocent civilians with rockets and this time with raging murderers and rapists.

U.S. politicians, journalists and academics are joining the widespread wave of international Israel-bashing, ignoring the role of international bodies like the United Nations, as well as the United States and the European community, in having allowed Gaza to have become an open-air prison and a launching pad for missiles against civilians.

Pushed to the extreme, the commentators might suggest that democracies hesitate to fight a war against poor, densely populated countries because their populations suffer disproportionately compared to countries better equipped to protect civilians.

The hypocrisy of singling out Israel to adhere to a higher standard is nothing new, but a repetition of the same idea that Israel should be judged differently than other nations.

Consider the historical context: During World War II, the Allied forces, including the U.S., inflicted significant civilian casualties in Japan and Germany — between 1 million and 2 million Japanese civilians and up to one million Germans — to secure victory. Should America have been condemned for human rights violations?

On the contrary, those who uphold democratic values should heed the words of past U.S. presidents throughout the 20th century, affirming that the defense of democracy should know no bounds. While the war was raging, George Marshall was not thinking about how to rebuild Germany.

An independent consideration that makes restrictions on combat even more ludicrous is that Israel’s population comprises less than 5% of the surrounding countries, many of which have refused to sign peace treaties. Some, like Iran, are advocating for its destruction.

With such demographics, Israel finds itself inherently more vulnerable. Taking into account Iran’s population and the population of Israel’s neighbors, totaling more than 200 million, Israel needs to fight a short war. While casualties are inevitably higher in the short term, shorter wars produce less overall damage.

The second Iraq war lasted for more than eight years, with civilian casualties estimated between 186,000 and 210,000. There will inevitably be fewer casualties in a shorter Gaza war.

While criticism and debate are essential in any democracy, it is crucial to base assessments on factual analysis rather than ideological posturing.

Lastly, why are so many Republicans silent when faced with Democrat’s inconsistency and hesitation about supporting Israel in this war where its survival is at stake. This silence amid perceived Democratic disarray prompts questions about whether Republicans will reaffirm at this critical time America’s commitment to one of its closest allies.

© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.