Words and Their Consequences
Words from high places have consequences.
President Clinton raised unrealistic expectations for some people and made it incalculably harder for Israel to reach a stable, long-term agreement with the Palestinians when he said, “The agreement… whether refugees go home depends in part on how long they’ve been away and whether they wish to go home. It will also depend on what the nature of the settlement is: How much land will the Palestinians have? Where will it be? How does it correspond to where people lived before?
Words from high places have consequences.
President Clinton raised unrealistic expectations for some people and made it incalculably harder for Israel to reach a stable, long-term agreement with the Palestinians when he said, “The agreement… whether refugees go home depends in part on how long they’ve been away and whether they wish to go home. It will also depend on what the nature of the settlement is: How much land will the Palestinians have? Where will it be? How does it correspond to where people lived before? And I would like it if the Palestinian people felt free and were free to live wherever they liked, wherever they want to live.”
He wasn’t the first President to raise dangerous expectations. The Iraqi people learned a bitter lesson when President Bush said they should overthrow Saddam in 1991 after the coalition had liberated Kuwait. By the tens of thousands Shiites and Kurds did what they understood the President had urged them to do. By the tens of thousands they died.
Both Presidents had handlers who, after the fact, said the President hadn’t exactly meant what he said; that he was misunderstood. Too late for the Iraqi opposition.
Other bodies of presumed stature play this game as well.
On April 28, l999, the UN Human Rights Commission adopted a resolution calling for self-determination for the Palestinians on the basis of Resolution 181 of November 1947. All the European nations voted for there solution. German Ambassador Theodor Wallau reconfirmed the EU’s support for the internationalization of Jerusalem. “We reaffirm our stated position regarding the specific status of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum [a separate body]… This position is in accordance with international law.” In a later “clarification,” an EU representative noted that since the so-called “Berlin Declaration” also contained “explicit references in the text to UNSC Res. 242 and 338 as the principles underlying the framework of the peace process” Israel should be “reassured.”
These statements constitute extraordinary mischief, if not true venality.
Some statements are made clearly for the record, as when someone is running for office (the Senate, for example) and panders to an important minority (let’s say Jews). “I personally consider Jerusalem the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel,” said Mrs. Clinton. “If I am chosen by New Yorkers to be their senator,… you can be sure that I will bean active, committed advocate for a strong and secure Israel able to live in peace with its neighbors, with the United States Embassy located in its capital, Jerusalem.”
Mrs. Clinton added, “Of course, the timing… must be sensitive to Israel’s interest in achieving a secure peace with its neighbors.” Who would she have determine “Israel’s interest?” The Palestinians? President Clinton? Israel?
Mischief abounds.