Wall Street Journal advances discredited claim that Clinton did not condemn Suha Arafat's remarks
SUMMARY: A Wall Street Journal article reported that as first lady, Hillary Clinton "sparked outrage after embracing Suha Arafat, wife of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, shortly after Mrs. Arafat accused Israel of using poison gas against Palestinians." But the article did not note that Clinton reportedly "condemned Mrs. Arafat hours later, after receiving, she said, an official translation of her remarks."
In a March 2 Wall Street Journal article, Middle East correspondent Charles Levinson reported that as first lady, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton "sparked outrage after embracing Suha Arafat, wife of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, shortly after Mrs. Arafat accused Israel of using poison gas against Palestinians." But Levinson, who was reporting on Clinton's upcoming visit to Israel, did not note that Clinton reportedly "condemned Mrs. Arafat hours later, after receiving, she said, an official translation of her remarks."
As Media Matters for America has noted, articles in both The Boston Globe and The Washington Post have reported that Clinton embraced Suha Arafat after Arafat made her remarks without noting Clinton's reported condemnation of those remarks. Additionally, right-wing pundit Debbie Schlussel has 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."
In an October 6, 2000, article, The New York Times reported:
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."
From the March 2 Wall Street Journal article:
On the home front, Mr. Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, also has ties to the region. He is the son of a former fighter in Israel's pre-statehood underground militia. That background may reassure American Jews, whose support Mr. Obama will need if he decides to press Israel to make painful concessions for peace, according to Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, a pro-Israel lobbying group based in New York.
Mrs. Clinton herself brings a track record that could both reassure and cause concern among Israelis and Palestinians alike. As first lady, she sparked outrage after embracing Suha Arafat, wife of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, shortly after Mrs. Arafat accused Israel of using poison gas against Palestinians.
In the Senate, Mrs. Clinton won Israeli supporters with positions including speaking out against anti-Israel incitement in Palestinian schoolbooks and media, a favorite cause of the Israeli right.
Mr. Netanyahu and his aides have been careful in public comments not to say anything that might hurt relations with the Obama administration. However, in private conversations, they have expressed skepticism about some of President Obama's appointees, who haven't hesitated to take critical stances against Israel.
Let's be honest. There is a pronounced Pro-Israel bias in American Politics and American News reporting. You may argue that it's justified, but you cannot deny that it's there. I simply refuse to believe that EVERYTHING Israel does is good and EVERYTHING the Palestinians do is bad.
Any honest attempt to broker a peace over there will consistently run up against this wall.
I support the right of Isreal to exist, and I support the right of the Jews to a homeland of their own.
That being said, I am a BIG critic of Isreal's "you hit us with a pebble, we'll hit you with a mallet" philosophy. And I also believe that the Palestians have a right to exist, and to have a homeland of their own.
The argument that "the Palestinians have lots of countries that they could live in, why do they need Israel?" is nonsensical on it's face, yet I hear it ALL THE TIME. The Jews ALSO have lots of countries that they could, and do, live in.
PEOPLE have the right to exist. That includes Jews AND non-Jews.
I totally agree. The biggest problem, as I see it, is the fanatical Israeli assertion that God gave them that land. Does the phrase "Manifest Destiny" ring a bell?
I just walk away from people who start off conversations by telling that that "God gave the land to the Jews." There is simply no point in continuing the discussion at that point, because to the person you are talking to, you are arguing against God.
There are PLENTY of American Jews- Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Secular- who are very open-minded and clear-headed about Israel's deeply flawed security policy. For some reason, the media equates Jews= Israel Can Do No Wrong. None of the Jews I know share this philosophy, why does the media?
That is my understanding as well. Apparently the woman who ran against Netanyahu was one of the more moderate Israelis. Unfortunately, the two Fanatic parties have combined to make a coalition government.
As in this country, the obnoxious radical conservative minority has disproportional influence in Israeli politics.
Too much influence is right and for all of the wong reasons. Not really much to do with the State of Israel or with it's ciizens but a lot to do with fulfilling things prophesised in Revelation.
The right wing spelling gestapo is goign to ahve a field day with that post.
And that one too.
How true. If I were an Israeli, I would be a little skeptical of "support" from delusional Evangelicals like John Hagee and Pat Robertson. If I'm not mistaken, in their End Times fantasy, all but 144,000 of the Jews wind up in Hell.
I totally agree, and I remember the same number (which might only mean that we're both wrong).
I have both Jewish and Muslim close friends, and nearly all of them disapprove of both the way Hamas and Israel act. Most people seem to be reasonable; this makes me wonder who, exactly, is happy with the unreasonable people being in charge? Hmmm...looking at that sentence, I think that there are probably unreasonable people in every government on earth; maybe they gravitate to it.
If you want to take a journey into La-La-Land, do some Google searches on Revelation and End Times "analysis". There are people who have constructed a whole framework of apologetics and logical gymnastics around this nonsense. They can expound endlessly as if they're actually talking about reality. It's not unlike a bunch of geeks discussing Star Wars or World of Warcraft.
I think the Star Wars and World of Warcraft discussions are probably more logically consistent.
Yeah, ya gotta love these farcockteh, meshuggah gops and evangelicals, They love Israel. They just hate Jews.
That's because they hate Muslims even more than they hate us. So much for Abraham's three squabbling sons.
one thing you forgot nerzog. is that they become christians and do not remain jews
The problem is that both Judaism and Islam make that claim. Religion and government don't mix. I think the only solution is two states; both have a right to exist.
the UN already went that route back in 1945, and its over 60 years after and nothing has been done
That's funny... And here I thought it was Harry Truman. ;)
So true, but in reality, who cares about the grousing of these folks. Obviously, this is another Clinto hater. Also, this person does not seem to understand diplomacy. Ummm, one talks to their enimies and they even follow the customs of that country. It is called respect for the person, not a willing endorsement of their behavior. But one needs a lot of sophistication to understand diplomacy. Thank God that Hillary Clinton has that sort of skill and she has demonstrated diplomatic behavior over many years. How nice that the last two Secretaries of State have both been so well informed.
"However, in private conversations, they have expressed skepticism about some of President Obama's appointees, who haven't hesitated to take critical stances against Israel."
Oh no, can't have that. If Israel takes action that bears criticism, then people should take critical stances against them. Why am I supposed to care about the Israeli government's disappointment that someone might actually take an objective view of the situation and hold them accountable for what they do?
What was the casualty ratio in the recent Gaza "war".... something like a dozen Israelis to 1300 Palestinians? Are we to believe that all 1300 of those Palestinians were terrorists?
fmbanker: Using "ragheads" shows how reasonable you're prepared to be.
I found "sand shvartzes" to be the more despicable reference.
I missed that the first time I read that post. I think that fmbanker's posts should start with words in blinking neon which read "NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY" so we don't waste our time with them. This guy is just a moron and has ZERO to add to any intelligent discussion.
He's dancing close to the edge. He was banned for his racist tirades when he was calling himself HSTYBUF6553.
I'm thinking lights on but nobody home.
I stopped reading at "ragheads," otherwise I would have mentioned both. Disgusting.
Like I said, they love Israel and hate Jews because they hate Muslims even more than they hate us.
As the Kinkster said, they just ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore.
What is the relevance of 1300 dead Palestinians? Does anybody really have to answer that? Judging by your subsequent racist jism, I guess you would consider it irrelevant.
Your obvious racist comments tell the entire story. Ughhh, ragheads. Sounds so disgusting.Thank goodness both Clinto and Rice had the good sense about how to behave while doing their jobs that we never need to worry about our country being embarassed becaus eof their behavior.
ragheads? why not take the next step and call them camel jockeys, or further and say "sand n...."
your racisim is stupifying.
and saying that civilians being killed is as it should be? why cause they are middle eastern.
FMbanker once again class in session and im going to school you AGAIN.
if you knew any history at all, and i think historygeek will back on this, many things in our own society we owe to the middle east.
here are some examples:
our number system, ya kno 123456, this was developed first in India and brought to Arabia, which after the Crusades spread outward.
our knowledge of geometry, medicine and many classical works of the ancient Romans, and Greeks, were preserved by Arabians.
herbs and spices that you oh so love to use, was introduced by Arabians.
so before you delve into your Bill O'Reilly non racist fantasy take some stock in how much your everyday life is owed to Arabians.
SCHOOLED AGAIN. Class dismissed.
Exactly right, and we can go even further back--the "Cradle of Civilization" and the Fertile Crescent, where we first began to build cities and develop agriculture, are all in the Middle East.
Including, apparently, almost 500 terrorist "children" buried in the rubble.
But the problem is that most people want to hold those two views:
1) The Jews have a right to a homeland, and
2) The Palestinians have a right to a homeland, too.
Unfortunately, I don't see a compromise here. If you let the Palestinians live in Israel or return to Israel, then the Jews will quickly be thrown out of power (and likely out of the country altogether.) If you try to create a 2-state solution, the Palestinians live in a bifurcated state (Gaza and the West Bank) trapped in inescapable poverty. The territories are in essence reservations. The only solutions I've heard posed regarding this dilemma seem irrationally optimistic with regards to human nature and political reality.
It does seem pretty hopeless; both sides have dug in their heels, and atrocities have been committed by both.
It just seems that the Israelis are intentionally perpetuating the conflict by building massive settlements in Gaza, and treating the Palestinians who live there like cattle. If these policies were reversed, would the Palestinians behave? Maybe not...but it might be worth a try.
how dumb can you be. there is no israeli living in gaza, there is no settlement in gaza. those that were there were small, and they were all removed under Sharon several years ago.
I stand corrected. There are settlements in the West Bank, which Netanyahoo has announced will be expanded. Therefore, I stand by my point.
who us Suha Arafat ?
Is the wall Street Journal on a mission to drag out fossils and diminish Mrs Clinton's jod performance wuith peripheral complaints ?
The lunatic-fringe likes of the WSJ-ED is why this place exists and why we're having this conversation in the first place.
They operate under the same basic, bogus premise of all wingnut-nonsense sites - The MSM and the facts have a liberal bias so they get to make stuff up.
Yasir Arafat's wife
Inevitably, if you dare to criticize Israel, somebody will accuse you of being an "anti-Semite", or will point to the Holocaust, as if that horrible event bought permanent license for Israel to behave as it pleases. Sorry, but I don't buy it.
The Holocaust was evil and tragic, and the world should be horrified that it was allowed to happen. However, Native Americans suffered a similar holocaust at the hands of our own government, though it was spread out over a much longer period of time. Does that make Native Americans immune from any and all criticism?
Personally, it seems to me that the obvious solution in 1945 was to hand half the nation of Germany over to a new Jewish homeland. It always seemed preposterous to punish the Palestinians for something the Germans did.
But of course, you couldn't give the Jews a homeland in the middle of Europe- the Europeans would not have stood for that. So instead you take a chunk of land away from people who didn't create extermination camps, give it to European Jews, and then look on in faux astonishment when the people who used to live on land you just gave away don't say "thank you sir, may I have another?"
Well, you have to take into account the Christian fascination with Biblical Prophecy. Christian fanatics had been trying to figure out a way of restoring the Jews to Israel for centuries, and that sentiment was formally expressed in the Balfour Declaration of 1917.
Instead of seeking a reasonable solution following WWII, they used force of arms to take back the "Holy Land", and we've had conflict ever since.
hey numbnuts, the conflict began long before the founding of Israel.
Yes, Dorknozzle, I know. That's why I said it's been going on for centuries.
How far back would you like to go? When the Israelites slaughtered the Canaanites?
>>hey numbnuts, the conflict began long before the founding of Israel.
Actually, it didn't. The comprehensive data in the region shows that Arabs and Jews got along around the turn of the 20th century, with Arabs quite sympathetic towards the plight of the Jews. The confict began when Arabs realized that Jews wanted to colonize their land.
my god, you actually made a correct and factual point.
lets see how smart you really are.
when did the conflict truly begin?
well banker since you obviously don't have the brainpower to try and look the answer up ill provide it for you.
there are two main arguments when this whole thing started. the first beign the Crusades. the second reacing back furtherthe estabilishment of Islam and decline of the Byzantine Empire. im more preferrential to the first. but thats me.
there are good arguments on both sides.
my reasoning for the Crusades is thus: before that time, Muslims expanded their territory all the way to Spain until checked by Charles Martel. and also the 711 siegie of Constantinople. after these two events the Muslims settled down and didn't really seek to do much more conquering. when the First Crusade was launched and succeded. and the events of the Seige of Jeruselem angered the Muslims forever since.
you really know nothing. what would you have done with the palestine mandate in 1945 that had several hundred thousand jews living there.
I'm really supposed to explain myself to someone who refers to "the ragheads?" Really?
You aren't worth brushing off my shoe.
Let's not forget the Holocaust of enslaved Africans, perhaps five million of whom died during the Middle Passage between the years 1600-1800.
Or the Holocaust of the Russians, millions of whom were driven into starvation and/or forced into slavery in work camps by their government in the 1930s.
Let's also not forget that the Holocaust of 1939-45 was the final act (we hope) in more than a thousand years of sporadic, often murderous, violence against the Jews of Europe, from thousands being burned to death during the Black Death, to thousands more being tortured and murdered by a series of Inquisitions, to thousands more being murdered or sent into exile by the Russian Czar in the 19th century.
Hey, nobody said Hitler invented anti-semitism. He just took it to the next level.
those are not new settlements, they are already huge and have been there for almost 40 years.
Sort of like tumors that start small and just continues to grow?
The settlements keep expanding, and they're planning to expand them even more. Unless they're building straight up, that means more land devoured.
There has been one constant since the end of the 1967 war: Irsaei expansion of settlements. The Israelis have made bogus offers all through the years; the settlements expanded. The Israelis have gone to war; the settlements have expanded. Suicide attacks; expand settements. Peace agreeents? Expand settlements.
Remember, the Israeis always claim that the Palestinians can't be trusted, that they just want to kill all Jewish people. So naturally, if you have a blood thristy enemey, logically, you move children and women into their territory.
If anyone really wants to understand what's going on over there, think Native Americas vs. White settlers. Very few events in history are so analogous. While the Israeis have managed wholescale land theft and decimate Palestinian life style, they have been able to convince the American public (thought not the rest of the word) that they are the victims.
The irony is that Israel may do itself in. Within about 20 years, Arabs will be the majority population of both Israel proper and the terrirories. A minority will rule over a majority with no rights. At that point, Israel will be an outright apartheid state. Palestinians will demand one vote, one person, and there will go the Jewish state.
I have often pondered that analogy myself. Sixty Minutes did a story about this problem a few weeks ago. The situation amounts to a defacto apartheid. Israeli soldiers can commandeer a Palestinian house without warning for as long as they want.
The Palestinians, like our Native Americans, have also committed atrocities, but the balance of power is incredibly one-sided. And, as history has taught us, when a majority is oppressed by a minority, it often leads to terrorism and revolution.
I hope they find a solution before all the crazies over there decide it's time to play Bible Prophecy Roulette.
But hasn't Suhu Arafat already apologized to Rush Limbaugh for her remarks...? ;>)
idk. but i do know fmbanker got his racist remarks flagged.