About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Boston Globe, Wash. Post echo discredited accusation that Clinton did not condemn Suha Arafat's remarks

January 13, 2009 8:50 am ET

SUMMARY: The Boston Globe and The Washington Post echoed the discredited accusation, advanced by conservative media figures, that Sen. Hillary Clinton did not condemn controversial comments by Suha Arafat during a 1999 trip to the West Bank, where Arafat, according to the Globe, "launched into an unscripted tirade accusing Israel of poisoning Palestinian children." In fact, Clinton reportedly "condemned Mrs. Arafat hours later, after receiving, she said, an official translation of her remarks."

18 Comments

Echoing the discredited accusation, advanced by conservative media figures, that Sen. Hillary Clinton did not condemn controversial comments by Yasser Arafat's wife, Suha Arafat, during Clinton's 1999 West Bank visit, a January 13 Boston Globe article reported that Clinton's "political career nearly ended when she attended an event at which Arafat's wife launched into an unscripted tirade accusing Israel of poisoning Palestinian children. The hug Clinton gave Suha Arafat that day sparked a furor among Jewish voters in New York, where she was planning a Senate run." But the Globe article, by foreign policy reporter Farah Stockman, did not note that Clinton reportedly "condemned Mrs. Arafat hours later, after receiving, she said, an official translation of her remarks."

Additionally, a January 13 Washington Post article by staff writers Anne E. Kornblut and Glenn Kessler reported that "Clinton kissed and embraced Suha Arafat, the wife of then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, after Suha Arafat made inflammatory remarks about Israel, including allegations of using poison gas against Palestinians. (Clinton later said the translation of the remarks was incomplete.)" But Kornblut and Kessler also did not note Clinton's reported condemnation of the comments, which The New York Times included in an October 6, 2000, article. From the Times article:

On the trip, Mrs. Clinton was photographed kissing the wife of Yasir Arafat, after Mrs. Arafat, speaking in Arabic, accused the Israeli government of employing toxic gas against Palestinian women and children. Mrs. Clinton condemned Mrs. Arafat hours later, after receiving, she said, an official translation of her remarks.

When Mrs. Clinton was asked by a Jewish Week questioner whether she would have done anything differently with the benefit of hindsight, she responded briskly. "I wouldn't have gone -- that's the first thing," she said. Mrs. Clinton said the encounter, which some of her advisers view as the low point of her campaign, led to "a misimpression about my strong feelings and support of Israel."

As Media Matters for America has noted, right-wing pundit Debbie Schlussel repeatedly claimed that, during Clinton's 1999 trip to the West Bank, "there wasn't a peep from Hillary Clinton when Suha Arafat told her that Jews like me poison Palestinian water and air and cause cancer for them."

From the Boston Globe's January 13 article, "Bill Clinton's policies may echo at hearing":

Perhaps one of the most urgent lines of questioning today will be on Obama's so far fairly muted response to the recent Israeli incursion into Gaza to stop Hamas rocket fire. More than 900 Palestinians have been killed.

Hillary Clinton's views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been shaped in part by the front-row seat she had for her husband's attempt to bring about a historic agreement. In 1998, she accompanied Bill Clinton to Gaza, on the first such visit of a US president, raising high hopes for a deal between Israel and then-Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat. She also caused a sensation when she endorsed the idea of a Palestinian state, going further than her husband's stated policies.

But the next year, her political career nearly ended when she attended an event at which Arafat's wife launched into an unscripted tirade accusing Israel of poisoning Palestinian children. The hug Clinton gave Suha Arafat that day sparked a furor among Jewish voters in New York, where she was planning a Senate run.

Since then, Clinton has been unwavering in her support for Israel, backing the security fence that extends into the West Bank and that creates hardships for Palestinians. She has traveled to Israel twice as senator, but never returned to Palestinian areas.

From the Washington Post's January 13 article, "In Foreign Policy, a New Trip at the Top":

One of Clinton's earliest tests as secretary of state will be the current conflict between Israel and the Islamist group Hamas in the Gaza Strip, where the heavy toll of Palestinian deaths has outraged Arabs. As a senator, Clinton earned a reputation as one of Israel's strongest defenders, even asserting during the Democratic primaries that the United States could "obliterate" Iran if it launched a nuclear attack on Israel and arguing that the United States should not negotiate with Hamas unless the group renounced terrorism.

Yet nine years ago as first lady, Clinton kissed and embraced Suha Arafat, the wife of then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, after Suha Arafat made inflammatory remarks about Israel, including allegations of using poison gas against Palestinians. (Clinton later said the translation of the remarks was incomplete.) She also called for the creation of a Palestinian state before the Clinton administration officially endorsed the idea.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mr. l (January 13, 2009 9:03 am ET)
         

      BoGlo and WaPo... look out!  Some conservatives have infiltrated your bastion of liberalism!  Please sound the alarm!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mr. l (January 13, 2009 9:03 am ET)
         

      And AA will be along to rewrite history with these losers in three.. two... one...

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mr. l (January 13, 2009 9:18 am ET)
         

      Two articles on the same day about the same topic, BOTH of which lied.  No... of COURSE there's no conservative misinformation continually being aired by MM, it's still all a LIBERAL AGENDA!!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by MickD (January 13, 2009 9:45 am ET)
           

        And your links and examples are where?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mr. l (January 13, 2009 9:51 am ET)
             

          In my head and my rear end, like a good neoconservative whose sole crusade in life is to convert all humanoids to christainity- just like jesus said we all should!

          Report Abuse
    • Author by Dem02020 (January 13, 2009 10:06 am ET)
         

      I always like these "condemnfests", where one person starts if off (like a tennis player serving the ball) saying "do you condemn this or that?"

      And the other person (returning serve) says "I certainly did! I condemned the heck out of it, the moment I understood how damnable it was!"

      Back and forth like that.

      The only thing is, there's an infinitely long list of people and things to condemn: and if you have to reach back ten years (as in this arafat example) to accuse someone of not condemning quick enough, if at all, then you've gone (back) too far... it's like someone returning serve in a tennis game: a serve ten years old!

      Besides, there's just too many things on the "condemn checklist" to be dealt with, more recent things, than this arafat thing... like for example Bush and Cheney and the former Republican majority but now minority in Congress: we're right now suffering a backlog in tardy and unsigned condemnations of those damnable things.

      Let's get on the ball People!

      George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are about to slide out the door People, and you haven't condemned them even one tenth, one hundreth the condemnation they deserve!

      Let's start getting those condemnations in on time folks: let's work from the top of the checklist, and not from the bottom... reaching back ten years, is to reach around and past 3,000 Americans murdered on September 11 2001, and 4,300 U.S. Troops killed in IRAQ.

      DAMN George W. Bush and DAMN Dick Cheney!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (January 13, 2009 10:29 am ET)
           

        In greatful thanks for all that this administration has done for the nation and world. Each will be given a cheap suit, $100, and a one way airline ticket to either; Iran, Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, Syria, Palistine, or Lebanon.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (January 13, 2009 10:34 am ET)
             

          Can we give each a list of things that they should condemn, and a timeline for the condemning? After that we'll work on the renouncing, denouncing and rejecting.

          And none of this calculated Hillary stuff, where you wait hours for an official translation before you condemn the stuff. Go with your gut!

          Report Abuse
      • Author by Victor Colorado (January 13, 2009 10:58 am ET)
           

        I think we can repair the damage that Bush and Cheney have done to the once great nation.  It started with the American people's rejection of McCain-Palin, but I think a more direct condemnation of Bush and Cheney will be needed.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by dave (January 13, 2009 11:30 am ET)
             

          And that's fine. Condemn away. I was thinking that the best way to repair the damage was to address the economy, the market, the unemployment numbers, etc,

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Victor Colorado (January 13, 2009 11:51 am ET)
               

            I was replying to Demo2020 regarding the necessary accountability and condemnation of Bush and Cheney for all the lives they've destroyed playing war games.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by Craig (January 13, 2009 1:02 pm ET)
               

            You're right, condemning Bush and Cheney is less important than rejecting their failed ideology and reversing the damage they've caused.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by BillJ-MN (January 13, 2009 1:06 pm ET)
                 

              But there's no reason to see it as an either-or situation.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Victor Colorado (January 13, 2009 1:09 pm ET)
                   

                Exactly, one way to do both would be for Obama to close Gitmo within his first 100 days in office.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by SFnomad (January 13, 2009 3:50 pm ET)
                     

                  As long as he is already in the process of transferring prisoners out, and begun to close it down within 100 days, I'll be happy.  The place doesn't have to be empty, but at least well on its way.

                  Of the couple hundred prisoners that are there, I'm sure a good majority will be easy to deal with, but I'm sure there will be some that will require more work to process.

                  Report Abuse
    • Author by wookie (January 13, 2009 2:33 pm ET)
         

      Just think of all of the things someone somewhere might be saying right now that Hillary hasn't condemned yet. Ooo I just hate her!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by lisa.spinelli2575 (January 13, 2009 7:44 pm ET)
         

      10 years ago?!  Come on.  The Hillary Haters Club is on the rampage again.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mari2jj2970 (January 13, 2009 11:38 pm ET)
         

      It is amazing how separated from factual information that conservatives pretend to be.  It is obvious that Mrs. Clinton made a difinative statement about Arafat's erroneous statement abut the mess in the Middle East, but of course, big shot conservatives seldom check the facts since they are so intent on disparaging progressives.  All they do is make themselves look dummer and it does not take that much effort to do it since conservatives are always handing others the stuff to call them out on.  But alas, our long Bush nightmare is over and alas, progressives take over.  Conservatives need to have an honest assessment and try the ideas of Mr. Obama and the DemocratIC majority if they want back in power any time soon.  This overwhelming loss is the price the Republican conservatives are going to pay for some prolonged time for their rationalization of the Bush malfeasance and their lock-step support of Mr. Bush.  I am a registered Republican and I had to face up to the fact that GW Bush has been the worst President that we have had for the last quarter century.  Sad but true.  This is so aptly illustrated by Bush's own evaluation of his response to Katrina.  Bush's statment was totally devoid of reality, in fact, delusional on Bush's part.  But, until we Republicans hold him accountable, we look like we are stupid like he is and that we are in cahoots with the Bush wall to wall mess.  We need at least a bit of honesty and integrity in order to call Bush out for his years of malfeasance the last 8 years.  I dare  Republicans to look anyone else squarly in the eye and try to tell the big fat lie that Bush 2 handled Katrina in any humane, organized manner.  Bush's behavior was a great illustration of criminal inhumane racism and stupidity and the sooner Republicans face up to that, the better off we will be and the sooneer there is some hope for us to recover our way back into power.  Ignore these facts at Republicans own peril and get used to the minority status.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.