Navigating the minefield of politicians' verbal gaffes

The Clinton case

Hugging Suha Arafat might have been the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton politically, as far as the American Jewish community is concerned - that's what a prominent Jewish leader told me earlier this week. And for those who don't quite remember, here's how Ron Kampeas of JTA described it yesterday: "Clinton's 2000 run for the Senate was marred by a 1999 incident in which she sat by and said nothing as Suha Arafat, Yasser Arafat's wife, accused Israel of deliberately poisoning children. Clinton and Suha Arafat embraced after the speech."

Why was this unfortunate incident so good for Clinton? Because it taught her an important lesson: Every word, every gesture is watched and counted, especially in this volatile area of interest. She was never caught again hinting at any compromising views she might have, or had. Or maybe she doesn't really have any. Whatever the case may be, she now enjoys a remarkable popularity with both Jewish Americans and Israelis, as this article in the Forward and the Israel Factor panel both show.

The Rice case

Now, how about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, calling Hamas "a resistance movement" instead of a "terrorist group" as Al Kamen pointed out in the Washington Post Thursday. The press didn't make much of it, nor did we hear any words of protest from anybody else.

Was she just tired? Was she trying to make a point that wasn't well expressed? It doesn't matter: everybody seems to understand that the prospect of Rice opening the door to a new love affair with Hamas is not a real danger - so they just ignored these remarks, and rightly so.

The Kerry case

Ignoring such gaffes can be an important tool, but it can also be problematic. What if Rice was trying to make a point? What if her position against Hamas is weakening? This minefield of so-called "problematic" comments is tricky to navigate. It is also one that's based not just on the actual words people say, but also on the long-term pattern, and the many pre-dispositions of the listener. A good example of this is Senator John Kerry's gaffe during the 2004 primaries in which he referred to the separation fence as "a barrier to peace."

Kerry later declared, repeatedly, that the fence is legitimate, and he attacked the world court for making a decision to call on Israel to dismantle it. "They do not have jurisdiction," he said. But I'm not sure it calmed everybody. Kerry is still perceived by many as somewhat more suspicious than, say, Clinton. Why is that? Because he made a specific, policy-related, comment that's hard to interpret in a favorable way; Because he is knowledgeable about the facts and can't claim ignorance; and because he is who he is. Many people expected his views to be of this kind, and were only waiting for a proof.

The Dean case

And Kerry should have known better, as he was one of those who attacked another Democratic candidate, Howard Dean, for saying that "it's not our [the United States'] place to take sides" in the Palestinian and Israeli conflict?

"It is either because he lacks the foreign policy experience or simply because he is wrong", said Kerry. And you know what? The first explanation is much more accurate in describing Dean than it is in describing foreign-policy-expert Kerry. It is possible and convenient to assume that Dean just didn't know back then that "balanced" is actually a code word for "unfavorable to Israel."

Last May, when Dean was speaking to an AJC conference about Iran, he proved to have learned something. "Dean - wearing the badge of a leftist Democrat," I wrote, "was actually the one going into details in regard to Iran - Making the more forceful argument. The crowd demanded it from him in the short session of questions and answers. But even before that, it was clear that he was coming with a decision that's been made in advance: He was not going to leave any room for doubt or interpretation on this issue."

The Clark case

The Wesley Clark incident might fall under the Dean category. Calling the people who might be trying to promote a military attack on Iran "the New York money people" was indeed foolish and also smelled of anti-Semitic propaganda. But was it really worth elevating to scandal status - or just an angry man trying to sound more sophisticated than he really is and better left alone?

The Carter case

Jimmy Carter, whose latest book has been attacked as slanted against Israel, is another case in point. This week he made headlines as he addressed an audience of 1700 students and faculty members in Brandeis University, and responded to some questions selected in advance. He also apologized for one paragraph in the book. One of Carter's claims in the book was that "Palestinian groups" had promised to stop suicide bombings the moment Israel accepted the principles of "international law" and the "ultimate goals of the road map for peace" - a comment that made people blame him for supporting suicide bombers. "That sentence was worded in a completely improper and stupid way, for which I have to apologize," Carter said in Brandeis. "I have written the publishers to change that sentence immediately."

So, another case of a slip of the tongue (or in this case, the pen) that should be forgotten?

The answer here is probably the easiest: Even if this specific paragraph was a gaffe, even if Carter didn't mean for this paragraph to be interpreted in the way that it was, there are more than enough other indications in this book to prove that he is, indeed, biased.