Over at the Atlantic, Garance Franke-Ruta contrasts Mitt Romney’s opinion of Palestinian “culture” (or, rather, how the media interpreted his comments) with that of Bill Clinton. With a hat-tip to National Journal’s Matthew Cooper, who dug up the quote, Franke-Ruta publishes a comment Clinton made in a speech last year in Riyadh that would seem to put him at stark odds with Romney on their evaluations of Palestinian culture.
When I read the quote, I immediately recognized it: I once heard Clinton deliver the same line–only it was to a Jewish audience, and it was meant to make the opposite point he was making to the Saudis, a point that comports much more with what Romney said. (Classic Clinton there, by the way.) First, what Franke-Ruta quotes, via the Arab News:
He said Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad have done a remarkable job in the West Bank. “It is just an example of what would happen for the Palestinian people if they are given a chance to govern,” Clinton said. “Palestinians are a hard-working and an incredible community. They have done remarkably well outside their country. I have never met a poor Palestinian in the United States; every Palestinian I know is a college professor or a doctor.”
The problem in Israel, he said, is what happens in multiparty democracies around the world. “If you take a poll today, two-thirds of Israelis will support peace and a peace agreement,” Clinton said. “However, it is hard to get an Israeli Parliament that reflects the people’s views on this one issue. But we all have to keep pushing.”
This was a clever rhetorical trick here. Clinton doesn’t say the problem is in Israel, he just switches immediately to the problem in Israel, leaving the impression this is Israel’s fault without explicitly saying so. (Also, his comment about Israelis being unable to elect a Knesset that shares the popular view on the peace process is nonsense; the Israelis have such a government now.)
That line about rich Palestinians in America made it easy to find my own account of Clinton’s speech to the American Jewish World Service in 2007. There, he made the same remark about all the Palestinian professors he knows, but then Clinton expressed his frustration that the Palestinians in Gaza possess some of the most beautiful beaches he’s ever seen, beaches that could be tourism cash cows, if only they could get their act together. He also noted that the Palestinians chose to destroy much of the infrastructure Israel left behind after the 2005 disengagement, rather than use it and build on it as free capital.
Their obsession with violence and warfare, he noted–not just against Israel but against each other as well–was destroying their development. Then he said this: “Those of us who are in a position to know better, and have the circumstantial freedom to do better, have a very real obligation to act on what we know.”
Now that is quite the condescending statement. Those of us who know better than the Palestinians–who have the resources and intelligence but, according to Clinton, not the cultural drive to prioritize economic development over retaliatory conflict–have a responsibility to take our values global to help others.
Clinton’s speech at that AJWS event, by the way, was flawless and universally well-received. Not a single objection during or after, as far as I can remember, was raised about the condescending manner in which Clinton spoke about Palestinian culture or the fact that he clearly laid the blame at the Palestinians’ own feet. Perhaps that’s because he was out of office. Or perhaps it’s because hypocrisy is the lifeblood of manufactured outrage, and the media’s response to Romney’s remarks contain a whole lot of both.
UPDATE: Turns out my old article on the event for a now-defunct Jewish newspaper was somehow still online. I’ve added the link to the story.
Neither American Jewish World Service, a Ruth Messinger left-wing outfit that does nothing to help Jews, nor its contributors would ever accuse Bill Clinton of treating Fakistinians condescendingly. Indeed as left-wing, totally secularized Jews they wouldn't even object if Bill or Hillary treated Jews in a condescending manner. True universalists!
Tom Friedman found the Palestinians totally blameless for the state of their economies in the West Bank and Gaza. As far as Hamas devoting all of its finances and energies to preparing for and making war against Israel (after Israel left Gaza), Friedman has nothing to say. As for Hamas destroying the modern infrastructure in agriculture that Israel left for them, Friedman has nothing to say. As for Arafat and his cronies giving themselves monopolies in everything from concrete to construction, Friedman has nothing to say. It is all Israel's fault. Tom Friedman has not changed since his student days in the 1970s when he was busy castigating Israel's Labor Governments.
It is a well known axiom that Middle East realities have an extremely short half life. Bill Clinton is so last century. Clinton seemed to feel a need to make it appear as if Israel were safe and could afford to make one sided concessions for dubious gains in negotiations.
Jewish American billionaires were made to feel embraced by a well constructed facade of articulate highly educated “Palestinians”. So good were these agents of Abbas, that more than a few Jewish Americans considered their “Palestinian” acquaintances “good friends”. Even going so far as to give them nice gifts each year. I would imagine that a standard “Palestinian friend of Jews” operating in, shall we say, Miami Beach, probably had a nice income as well as having gained some weight from all of the free meals at xxx’x.
Today is different, the “friends” have moved on and may or may not respond to their x-mas gift. When asked these wealthy Jewish Americans may refuse to acknowledge they are Jewish, like Soros, who once said…the Jews will do what is best for the Jews..”
Did I just read that Clinton said the problem with Israel is that people vote?
It ain't easy to make progress. A little bit of truth from both sides is a good thing. A little less name calling from both sides would also be a good thing. Life is sacred and too many Israelis and Palestinians have already died. Maybe its time for both sides to try again.
Any word that Mitt Romney dares to utter is by definition a gaffe. He is gaffe-prone. He is ignorant. He is unfit for our highest office. That's already been decided; the script has already been written. The facts are completely irrelevant.
Bob Kerry had him pegged, he said Clinton is a very good liar. So good you have to go back over his speeches to parse them for what he really said and when he said it. Most people trip them selves up because they can not remember all their lies. When he was in office i found weasel words in nearly every thing he said so it was hard to pin him down to any position and it gave him the out of context excuse. By the time he explained the context there three more questions in your mind.
Sure, Clinton was condescending to the Palestinians. After all, it is they who must learn how to exist as a culture, the only current attribute of which is homicidal hatred of Israel and Jews. In fact, the evidence which belies the Palestinian claim to nationhood is the complete absence of a distinct, traditional Palestinian national culture beyond the quotidian murder, brutality, oppression, corruption, ignorance, anti-Semitism and Israel-hatred that characterize the generic Muslim-dominated society. n nAs for all those "achievers" in the Palestinian diaspora, they only prove that removal from the cesspool that is the Arab Middle East and the adoption of civilized norms can transform even Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims into human beings, as long as they remain in the minority and are not allowed to form retrograde enclaves, as has happened — thanks to stupid, craven politicians — in urban Europe and America.