"I accept that in your mind, speaking the truth about one of those party leaders is wrong."
You made that up, and it's not okay.
We just disagree. Different perspectives, likely working with different info.
As I said, if you look you can find plenty of opposition from Schumer to what Netenyahu did. What you won't find from him is the degree of separation from the U.S. ally (Israel) that many desire.
I'm going to guess that Schumer will bow out of politics after the election. The writing is on the wall, either way; drag him before the election or after.
But his leadership on Israel reflected the consensus of his Democratic caucus (not withstanding the numerous Senators who've come out against his leadership.)
If there was another consensus that was diametrically opposed to Schumer's publicly expressed views, it would have emerged by now with much more than the few Senators who've been speaking out against his office and positions.
The party is a coalition of like beliefs and views which often disagree. That's the function of government; to reconcile those different interests, beliefs, or concerns into action or law.
I think that reality was lost in many minds last election, where folks forgot we operate in a mostly binary system of elections where one party works for the people, and the other trying to either end us or own us.
Also, that our party leaders operate out of the consensus of their respective caucuses, not the self-interest that many support or even encourage out of them. They weren't hired by the elected membership to dictate down to them. They were chose for their ability to reconcile the myriad differences among them into unified votes, which Schumer has done repeatedly and effectively.
That's his actual job, outside of the individual opinions and votes of his own seat in the Senate, which you say you oppose. He regularly puts those aside and represents what his party agrees to represent collectively. That's what his position as Dem leader requires, outside of what he expresses privately to his membership.
Disagreeing with him is fine and expected, but the political game and goal here isn't what Schumer believes, it's what the membership is willing to unify on. More than that, it about getting the party to a position where they can do more than just argue among themselves.
Many people would be satisfied for the party to argue perpetually in the minority, many of them I'd imagine would encourage more of this navelgazing infighting among people who mostly agree; among Democrats.
That's what debating like a U.S. president controls Israel did in the last presidential contest. It cast the election as a contest between what Biden believed, superimposed on Harris; deluding themselves and others that their opposition against the only party with any sanity was going to produce an outcome favorable to their beliefs and goals.
How did that work out for them? Just sayin'.
= new reply since forum marked as read