Well intentioned damage

At the end of 1998, then-President Clinton visited Gaza to oversee the fictional revocation of the clauses in the Palestinian Charter that call for the destruction of Israel. It’s not surprising that on the eve of President Bush’s to the Middle East some people recall his predecessor’s trip a little more than nine years ago.

Clinton, who felt (and probably still feels) everyone’s pain and he didn’t miss an opportunity when he visited the Middle East to commiserate. The International Herald Tribune recounts:

Nihad Zakout was 11 when she met Clinton in 1998. She was one of four Palestinian youngsters with fathers in Israeli jails who had been selected to deliver a plea to the U.S. leader to seek the release of Palestinian prisoners, one of the most emotionally charged issues in the conflict. 

Today, Zakout is a cynical 20-year-old, deeply disappointed in the U.S. as her father remains locked up… She says she has few expectations of Bush.

“There is nothing he can do,” she said.

A day after meeting Zakout and the other Palestinians, Clinton also met with young Israelis whose fathers had been killed by Palestinians.

Clinton said at the time that both groups of children brought tears to his eyes, and that “we have to find a way for both sets of children to get their lives back and to go forward.”

 

I edited something out of the quoted article. The full sentence should read “Today, Zakout is a cynical 20-year-old, deeply disappointed in the U.S. as her father remains locked up for killing an Israeli.”

It’s bad enough that the reporters consider the jailing of convicted murderers as an “emotionally charged issue.” How is it for the other side? If Zakout’s father was released, how would the relatives of his victim feel? That’s not explored.

But the then-president of the United States equated a child of a murderer with the children of murder victims! “Get their lives back?” Again, what about the victim of Zakout’s father? Would he ever get his life back?

At the Spine Martin Peretz (or, if Bloglines is correct, James Kirchik) writes

And the fact is that most Israelis knew Bill Clinton as a lover — but as an unfaithful lover. They go back in memory to the fall of 2000 when Clinton steamrolled Ehud Barak into concessions that were unwise and perilous but nonetheless did not entice Arafat into a deal but into starting the Second Intifada. Since I’ve been here I’ve spoken with three top security veterans who actually were terrified that, if Hillary were president, she’d send her husband as a mediator in the Israel-Palestinian conflict where, at best, he’d do well-intentioned damage.

 

When, in the name of peace, you conflate the murderers with their victims, there is no surer way to inflict well intentioned damage.

Crossposted at Soccer Dad.