Hillary Clinton received backlash for her disparaging remarks against student demonstrators, asserting that young individuals possess limited knowledge regarding the Middle East.
Last week Hillary Clinton appeared on MSNBC and expressed her opinions regarding the student protests happening around the country in response to the United States’ backing Israel, even after Israel has committed mass war crimes in the Gaza conflict.
She emphasized that young individuals lack knowledge about Middle Eastern history and “many areas of the world [history], including in our own country.”
“I have had many conversations, as you have had, with a lot of young people over the last many months now,” Clinton said. “They don’t know very much at all about the history of the Middle East, or frankly about history, in many areas of the world, including in our own country.”
Clinton continued by asserting that the Palestinians would have an independent state if Yasser Arafat, the former leader of the Palestinian Authority, had agreed to a proposal put forth by former President Bill Clinton.
“It’s one of the great tragedies of history that he was unable to say yes,” she said.
Notwithstanding the intricate historical context, there is no justification for Israel’s commission of war crimes in retaliation against Hamas’ war crimes.
Contrary to popular belief, the majority of these college protesters are anti-war, not “pro-Hamas,” as Clinton appears to presume.
Furthermore, Clinton’s argument remains ambiguous: are we expected to disregard the fact that indiscriminate Israeli bombings have claimed the lives of tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza and constitute a war crime according to International Humanitarian Law? Right now, experts consider the total death toll in Gaza to be around 35,000.
President Joe Biden informed a crowd of contributors that Israel is experiencing a decline in backing from the global community as a result of its “indiscriminate bombing” of Gaza. Indiscriminate attacks are considered war crimes, according to the laws of war, also known as international humanitarian law.
Some political scientists, such as Dr. John J. Mearsheimer, would assert that Clinton likely unconditionally supports Israeli due to the influence of special interest groups that represent the foreignn state, such as The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
AIPAC has spent over $60 million since 1998 lobbying both Democrats and Republicans. They spent over three million dollars in 2023 alone lobbying the government to support Israeli.
Mearsheimer, along with Dr. Stephen Walt, wrote a book on this topic called The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.
They conclude in their book that the Israel lobby significantly influences U.S. policy in the Middle East. They contend that in the event of a successful lobby, Israel enjoys greater autonomy with the Palestinians, its adversaries are weakened, and the majority of the expenditures, reconstruction efforts, and financial obligations are covered by the United States. They also assert that the lobby’s influence impairs the U.S.’s relationship with allies and heightens the threat of global jihadist terror, and that its policies are not in the long-term interests of the United States or Israel.
This phenomena is not unique to Israel or Jews — it can occur with any country that has domestic lobbying groups within the U.S. that represent it. Money is one of the the most significant factor that influences policy in American politics. The United States’ campaign finance system is among the most undemocratic in the world; in fact, some political scientists contend that it is an oligarchy ruled by the affluent.
Those with extreme wealth can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections and politicians, due to Supreme Court cases like Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. FEC.
Campaign finance is one of the most logical explanations for Clinton’s remarks regarding this war.
The actions carried out by Hamas on October 7th were abhorrent and constituted a violation of the laws of war. However, this does not justify Israel’s acts that violate international humanitarian law by targeting non-combatant individuals. Clinton appears to be unwilling to acknowledge the fact that Israel is violating international human rights laws.
The pervasive impact of lobbying is presumably the rationale behind the unwavering military support of Israel by many political figures on the left and right.
Clinton must be aware that a very large number of people in Gaza were unlawfully killed.
Labeling young anti-war protesters as unintelligent is counterproductive in shaping the perception of Democrats among young individuals.
Furthermore, it is a deceitful ad hominem attack aimed at evading genuine discourse regarding international law.
Comments