Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has fanned the flames of the Democratic internal battle over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s upcoming address to Congress, questioning the wisdom of the invitation just days after it was endorsed by leaders Democrats in both chambers.
Pelosi’s comments — and her decision to broadcast them on national television — have struck a chord with some rank-and-file Democrats, who express concerns that she has made things even more difficult for her successor, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.J.). Y). .), to lead the caucus through a tempestuous debate on a hot topic that is dividing the party with increasing intensity amid Israel’s war with Hamas.
“I was disappointed, because I think this makes things more difficult for our leadership,” said Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.). “They made a decision, the decision was difficult and we generally stuck together. Honestly, when she was speaker of the House, we hung out with her and I expected her to do the same.”
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), who is inclined to boycott Netanyahu’s speech to protest his handling of the war, nevertheless supports Democratic leaders’ decision to invite the prime minister to visit Washington . He is echoing Vargas’ warning that Pelosi’s comments will only exacerbate the party’s differences over Israel, to the benefit of Republicans.
“Israel is an ally and many of us support Israel without supporting Netanyahu. And I think that was the basis on which Mr. Jeffries made his decision. This was a courtesy to an ally and nothing more,” he said. “Obviously, she’s the former speaker of the House and I think comments like that don’t help the cohesion of the party.”
The backlash comes as Democrats dispute Israel’s military response to last October’s Hamas terrorist attacks, which led to the deaths of some 1,200 people and the abduction of 250 more. In the eight months since then, more than 35,000 Palestinians were killed by Israeli strikes, infuriating liberal Democrats who accused Netanyahu of doing too little to prevent civilian casualties. Some consider him a war criminal.
Republicans, by contrast, are virtually united during the war, supporting Netanyahu’s aggressive show of force and urging Israel not to stop until Hamas is eliminated. To promote that message, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) in March drafted an invitation for Netanyahu to speak at a joint meeting of Congress — a move derived, at least in part, from the House majority leader’s decision. Senate, Chuck Schumer (DN.Y.). explosive speech days earlier, attacking Netanyahu’s leadership and calling for new elections in Israel to replace him.
After consulting with the White House, both Jeffries and Schumer endorsed the letter earlier this month.
“We have made the decision to take the same approach we have taken with other heads of state,” Jeffries said last week.
Pelosi disagrees and, in an appearance on CNN earlier this month, said clearly that the decision to invite Netanyahu was “wrong,” warning that it would only fuel the already intensified internal unrest surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict.
“I’m really sad that he was invited,” she told the network.
Liberal Pelosi, who has led Democrats for most of this century, has a long history of clashing with conservative Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister – a rivalry that reached its peak in 2015, when Netanyahu addressed lawmakers on Capitol Hill for the last time. That invitation came from then-House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who sidestepped President Obama and Democratic leaders to bring the Israeli leader to the Capitol — an episode she still resents.
“He came and criticized Obama on the Iran nuclear deal,” she said last week. “It was terrible.”
Even in light of this bitter history, Pelosi’s recent comments to CNN caused a stir.
On the left, the comments energized some liberals, especially Netanyahu’s most vocal critics, who plan to boycott his speech next month. These lawmakers are applauding his speech, saying it gives voice and seriousness to the sentiments held by a large faction of the caucus. Furthermore, they add, it was no coincidence.
“Nancy Pelosi is very strategic in everything she does and also very discreet in everything she does,” said Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), who is boycotting the speech. , I think she is expressing what many members feel and is providing cover for members who may be in difficult positions and who feel the same way she does.”
Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), former Democratic caucus chair, expanded on that argument, saying Pelosi was “sending several different messages” to several different audiences. They include liberal lawmakers, but also liberal voters enraged by the rising number of Palestinian deaths, as well as their allies in the White House who were rejected by Netanyahu during the war in Gaza.
“She’s expressing the feelings of a lot of voters and a lot of members,” said Larson, who plans to attend the speech. “And she is especially upset about the way he treated Biden and [State Secretary Antony] Blink.”
Other Democrats, however, warn that anything less than a strong show of support for Netanyahu’s visit undermines the chances of Hamas being defeated, hostages rescued and a peaceful resolution reached.
Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.) declined to comment specifically on Pelosi’s comments. “But,” he quickly added, “if I were the leader, I would have signed the letter.”
“He is the prime minister of one of our closest allies,” Schneider said. “This is a very complex issue, with many nuances, and many people are trying to suppress the nuances to create political advantages for their position or their side.
“It doesn’t do any of us any good to divide Congress, to divide either party, in support of an important ally.”
Pelosi, for her part, is unapologetic, expanding her opposition to Netanyahu’s speech in a brief interview last week.
“I think it will be very provocative and he shouldn’t be invited,” she said. “I don’t know what he’s going to say, but he’s going to provoke – at least the protesters.”
Pelosi made a point of not criticizing Jeffries or Schumer, with whom she speaks frequently and has close ties, saying they had no choice but to endorse the invitation after Johnson wrote it. She also rejected the idea that she might have undermined their decision to adhere to the invitation or complicated their efforts to quell internal discord before the visit.
“No, no, we have freedom of speech here,” she said. “And I said on CNN that I don’t agree, but I respect that they made their own decision.”
Jeffries is also downplaying the episode, saying he is not concerned that it highlights internal divisions over Israel.
“She certainly has the ability to speak on her behalf and House Democrats will respect her perspective,” he said. “But our view is that members will make a decision one way or another based on their own individual feelings regarding this particular visit, similar to any other visit.”
Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.), senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also dismissed conflicting approaches to Netanyahu’s visit, saying Pelosi simply asked a question on TV and “she just answered honestly.”
“Hakeem is not Nancy Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi is not Hakeem — their styles are different,” he said.
“There’s nothing wrong with that.”
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
