Michael Arria
Mondoweiss / October 8, 2024
Donald Trump claims that Gaza could be “better than Monaco,” but Palestinians “never took advantage” of its location, while Kamala Harris declares Iran is the United States’ greatest adversary.
In an interview with right-wing pundit Hugh Hewitt, GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump claimed that Gaza could be “better than Monaco”, but Palestinians “never took advantage” of its location.
“I’ve been there, and it’s rough. It’s a rough place … before all of the attacks and before the back and forth what’s happened over the last couple of years,” Trump told Hewitt. “They never took advantage of it. You know, as a developer, it could be the most beautiful place — the weather, the water, the whole thing, the climate. It could be so beautiful. … it could be one of the best places in the world.”
There is no record of Trump ever visiting Gaza, either as President or in a business capacity.
Trump made a number of comments about Israel and Jewish-Americans on the show as well, clearly conflating the two things.
“I think that Israel has to do one thing. They have to get smart about Trump, because they don’t back me,” said the former president. “I did more for Israel than anybody. I did more for the Jewish people than anybody. And it’s not reciprocal, as they say, not reciprocal.”
A recent poll found that almost 60% of Israelis would vote for Trump if they lived in the United States, while just 25% would vote for Vice President Kamala Harris. Israel is one of the only countries in the world where Trump maintained a favorable approval rating throughout his entire presidency.
At a North Carolina campaign event last week Trump told the crowd that Israel should bomb Iran’s nuclear sites.
Trump was responding to a recent comment by President Joe Biden. Biden had said Israel should “respond proportionally” to Iran’s recent missile attacks, but said this shouldn’t include nuclear sites.
“They asked him, ‘What do you think about Iran? Would you hit Iran?’ And he goes, ‘As long as they don’t hit the nuclear stuff’,” said Trump. “That’s the thing you want to hit right? I said I think he’s got that wrong, isn’t that the one you’re supposed to hit? It’s the biggest risk we have, nuclear weapons, the power of nuclear weapons. When they asked him that question the answer should have been, ‘Hit the nuclear first and worry about the rest later.’”
Kamala Harris says Iran is biggest enemy for U.S.
In an interview with 60 Minutes Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris was asked who the greatest adversary of the United States
“I think there’s an obvious one in mind, which is Iran,” she responded. “Iran has American blood on their hands. This attack on Israel, 200 ballistic missiles, what we need to do to ensure that Iran never achieves the ability to be a nuclear power, that is one of my highest priorities.”
When asked if she would order a preemptive strike against Iranian nuclear sites Harris said, “I’m not going to talk about hypotheticals at this moment.”
Center for International Policy Senior Fellow Sina Toosi on Twitter: “An insane answer by Harris—showing the irrational US obsession with Iran, which is driven by politics & donor money, not US interests. So she’s basically promising more Middle East wars while her own base questions even voting for her over Israel? Completely out of touch.”
National Iranian American Council Policy Director Ryan Costello: “Both Obama and Biden suggested they’d engage Iran on the campaign trail, whereas Clinton projected a more hawkish tone and said she was proud to have the Iranians as her enemies. Borrowing from a losing playbook.”
Attorney and author Chase Madar: “Washington’s commitment to holding Iran as an enemy (an “existential threat,” even) is as irrational as the commitment to blank-check support for Israel. The two are linked, with B) doing much of the work to maintain A).”
Yesterday Responsible Statecraft ran a piece by Center for Security Studies of Georgetown University fellow Paul Pillar on how Biden is allowing Israel to make the situation with Iran worse.
“The projected attack serves no U.S. interests. The attack perpetuates a broader pattern of escalating violence in the Middle East that also serves no U.S. interests,” writes Pillar. “The Iranian missile salvo to which the coming Israeli attack is ostensible retaliation was itself retaliation for previous Israeli attacks. Retaliation for retaliation is a prescription for an unending cycle of violence.”
“The United States is facilitating an attack on a nation that does not want war and has been remarkably restrained in trying to avoid it, in the face of repeated Israeli provocations,” he continues. “A sustained Israeli bombing campaign against Iranian-related targets within Syria elicited a response only when it escalated to an attack on a diplomatic compound in Damascus, killing senior Iranian officials. Even then, the Iranian response, in the form of an earlier salvo of missiles and drones in April, was designed and telegraphed in a way to make a show of defiance but — with most of the projectiles certain to be shot down — to cause minimal damage and almost no casualties.”
Michael Arria is Mondoweiss’ U.S. correspondent
