|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Edited by: Fern Sidman
In a striking appearance in Michigan, former President Bill Clinton addressed a politically charged issue with a level of candor and emotional gravity not often seen from such a seasoned figure. According to a report on Thursday in The New York Post, Clinton, appearing visibly frail and with a hoarse voice, made a heartfelt appeal on behalf of Israel’s current actions in Gaza, targeting “young Arab Americans” in his audience. Clinton’s weight loss and hoarse voice added a somber gravity to his words, suggesting the personal weight he felt in discussing a decades-old conflict that has shaped his political legacy. This appeal came during a stump speech in Muskegon Heights, a community with a significant Arab American population, highlighting the prominence of Israel policy in local and national debates.
Democrats and anti-Israel folks are freaking out over this blisteringly candid campaign speech by Bill Clinton in Michigan about the Israel-Hamas war, claiming it will cost them the election.
Tip: If the truth loses you an election you might want to reevaluate your politics. pic.twitter.com/R9LzgAcp0m
— Yaron Samid 🇮🇱🇺🇸🎗️ (@yaronsamid) October 31, 2024
Addressing a crowd at a “Souls to the Polls” event, Clinton directly acknowledged the sensitivity of the Middle East conflict within the Michigan political landscape. “The hardest issue here in Michigan is the Middle East,” he noted, The New York Post reported. At 78, Clinton’s delivery was marked by a shaky tone, reflecting both his age and the emotional weight of the message he aimed to convey. His words were crafted to bridge a profound gap: “I understand why young Palestinians and Arab Americans here in Michigan think too many people have died. I get that.”
Clinton’s remarks touched on the difficult ethical and moral question of civilian casualties amid ongoing hostilities. He posed a pointed question that resonated deeply with his audience: “How many deaths is enough to punish them [Hamas] for the terrible thing they did?” Clinton’s phrasing implicitly acknowledged the tragic human cost on all sides while emphasizing with the gravity of the October 7, 2023, Hamas terror attack, which he recalled vividly. In that assault, The New York Post recounts, Iranian-backed Hamas terrorists invaded southern Israel and ruthlessly slaughtered 1200 Israelis and abduction 250 more, an incident that has since hardened public opinion.
In a powerful rhetorical move, Clinton asked his audience to imagine themselves in the shoes of those directly impacted by the violence. “What would you do if it was your family?” he challenged, directing listeners to consider the perspective of Israelis affected by the attack. As per the information provided in The New York Post report, Clinton underscored that some of the hardest-hit Israeli communities had been particularly supportive of Palestinian rights and the concept of a two-state solution. “They were the ones right next to Gaza, and Hamas butchered them,” he lamented. This statement not only called attention to the specific trauma faced by these communities but also underlined the political and emotional complexity surrounding the conflict.
Clinton’s support for Israel’s actions has intensified the challenges facing Democrats in Michigan. As The New York Post highlights, Michigan’s large Arab American community has increasingly diverged from the Democratic Party on issues related to the Middle East. The report in The New York Post observed that many Michigan voters, particularly within Arab and Muslim communities, have been disillusioned by the party’s continued policies of support for Israel, which they feel are at odds with their concerns over the humanitarian toll in Gaza.
According to a recent poll by USA Today/Suffolk University, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump are locked in a tight race in Michigan, a swing state with immense influence in national elections, The New York Post report explained. Only days before Election Day, Michigan’s Arab and Muslim voter base could play a pivotal role in deciding the state’s electoral outcome. In a reflection of this shift, a separate poll conducted earlier this month showed former President Trump leading among Arab American voters by a narrow margin of two percentage points.
Clinton acknowledged the need for a new approach to peace in the region, stating, “I think we’re going to essentially have to start again on the peace process,” as reported by The New York Post.
Clinton’s involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is well-documented. In 1993, he presided over the historic signing of the Oslo Accords, a landmark agreement that brought the two sides together with hopes for a two-state solution. However, the peace process stalled, and during Clinton’s tenure, violence erupted again in 1996. His Michigan remarks suggested a critical reassessment of past efforts and the inherent obstacles that have prevented the two sides from finding common ground.
As Clinton spoke, he zeroed in on Hamas, characterizing the organization as an impediment to Palestinian aspirations for statehood. “I think part of it is that Hamas did not care about a homeland for the Palestinians; they wanted to kill Israelis and make Israel uninhabitable,” he stated, as The New York Post reported. This stark assessment shed light on Clinton’s view that Hamas’s objectives are incompatible with the peace process, portraying the organization as an ideological barrier rather than a political entity advocating for Palestinian autonomy.
Despite his strong statements in support of Israel, Clinton’s comments also alluded to the need for a balanced approach. He emphasized the responsibility of both sides to break the cycle of violence, suggesting that a potential Harris administration would need to lead with a clear message: “They can’t murder their way out of this on either side.” Clinton’s words implied a call for a renewed diplomatic effort, grounded in the belief that achieving peace requires a “new beginning.” According to The New York Post report, he insisted that neither Israelis nor Palestinians can afford to rely on violence as a pathway to resolution.
Clinton’s remarks in Michigan, a state with a sizable Arab American population, came at a politically sensitive moment. Some voters in the state have expressed disillusionment with the Biden administration’s support for Israel, which they view as one-sided. The New York Post reported that Clinton urged caution among those considering abstention from the electoral process out of frustration with the Biden administration’s policies, emphasizing the necessity of maintaining support for Israel as a “historic obligation.” Addressing potential voter fatigue, Clinton noted, “People in Michigan are thinking about not voting because they’re mad at the Biden administration for honoring the historic obligation to try to keep Israel from being destroyed. I think that’s a mistake.”
Reports indicate that since the start of the war, the U.S. has spent $17.9 billion in military aid to Israel, a figure that has drawn criticism from segments of the American public.
During Clinton’s Michigan speech, 21-year-old Jessica Plichta voiced her dissent by calling out, “How about we stop funding it?” The New York Post report noted that Plichta later told Michigan Live that Clinton’s words painted an inaccurate picture of Arab intentions in the region. “He made it seem like Arabs are uprising and they want to eradicate all Jewish people from the area. That’s not true. They want self-determination and equal rights on their own land,” she clarified, pushing back against what she felt was a misrepresentation of the Palestinian cause.
Adding to the complexity of Clinton’s statements, his comments in Michigan came only a day after a similar speech at the University of Pittsburgh-Greensburg. There, Clinton shocked some attendees by claiming that Israeli leaders “don’t care anymore” about achieving peace in the Middle East, a remark that seems to highlight a shift in his own views since his active involvement in the peace process during the 1990s. According to The New York Post, Clinton’s words have cast a spotlight on the Harris campaign’s struggle to reconcile the growing divide within the Democratic Party on Middle East policy.
This internal division is increasingly evident as more left-leaning Democrats advocate for the U.S. to cease its military support for Israel, which they see as exacerbating the violence and impeding diplomatic efforts. On the other hand, a more centrist faction within the party remains firmly committed to backing Israel as a key ally. The report in The New York Post said that the Harris campaign, particularly second gentleman Doug Emhoff, has attempted to reassure Jewish voters that Vice President Kamala Harris would take a firm stance against anti-Semitism and continue to support Israel if she wins the presidency. However, Clinton’s recent comments, along with the conflicting perspectives within the party, have left some Democratic voters feeling uncertain.
These tensions were palpable among attendees of Clinton’s speeches, with some openly questioning the party’s direction. According to The New York Post report, certain attendees have signaled they may shift their support to the Republican Party, believing that the Democratic platform is no longer aligned with their views on the Israel-Hamas conflict and broader Middle East policy.
