December 1999

When Suha Arafat chose the occasion of a visit to the Palestinian territories by Hillary Clinton, US first lady and Senate candidate, to make allegations about Israel "poisoning" Palestinian women and children, she clearly did the Palestinian cause no favours.

The wife of the Palestinian Chairman was appearing with the US First Lady on November 11 at the launch of a new US$3.8 million US aid fund for Women’s and Children’s Health in Ramallah when she launched into her claims. "It is important to point out the severe damage caused by intensive daily use of poison gas by Israeli forces in the past years that has led to increased cancer cases among Palestinian women and children" she said, adding, "Israel has chemically contaminated about 80 percent of water sources used by Palestinians" and this has led to increased disease among Palestinians.

Mrs Clinton, who has been courting the Jewish vote in her run for the Senate in New York, was embarrassed by the accusations, and by attacks on her for failing to respond to the remarks at the time they were made. She blamed a translation problem. Israeli Prime Minister Barak "strongly condemned the unworthy statements" said they were "grave and totally baseless" and accused the Palestinian side of "poisoning the public atmosphere." US President Bill Clinton sent a reportedly angry letter to PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat complaining, and the Palestinian leader had to apologise, expressing "regret" over the embarrassment caused to Hillary Clinton. Palestinian officials privately conceded that the remarks were ill-timed.

However, considerations of practical utility aside, the controversy ignited by Suha Arafat only re-emphasised what has been an ongoing problem in the peace process since the signing of the Oslo accords, namely the problem of anti-Israel incitement.

One illustration of this was the reaction of the Palestinian side to Suha Arafat’s claims. No one on the Palestinian side will admit that they were wrong, as opposed to merely inexpedient, and Suha herself has never either apologised nor withdrawn the remarks. The excuse mounted by the Palestinian side and some apologists, that the statement refers to Israeli use of tear gas during the Intifada, is no excuse at all, since there is absolutely no evidence that tear gas contributes or has contributed to increased cancer. Furthermore, several key Palestinian spokesmen agreed with Suha Arafat. Legislator Hossam Khader said "I agree with her 100 percent". And a columnist in the official Palestinian Authority daily, Al-Hayat Al Jadida, attacked the US for condemning the accusations instead of accepting their truth, arguing that this was only done because of the strength of the Jewish lobby in America.

All of this is almost certainly in violation of Israeli-Palestinian agreements. The 1994 Oslo II agreement requires that both sides "seek to foster mutual understanding and tolerance and shall accordingly abstain from incitement, including hostile propaganda, against each other and, without derogating from the principle of freedom of expression, shall take legal measures to prevent such incitement by any organizations, groups or individuals within their jurisdiction." This provision was re-affirmed and strengthened in the subsequent Hebron and Wye accords, largely because Palestinian compliance had been a major problem.

Suha Arafat’s claims were but the latest in a long line of gross propaganda claims about Israeli abuse of Palestinians. In the past few years, official Palestinian Authority spokesmen have accused Israel of infecting Palestinian children with AIDS, conducting medical experiments on them, and of distributing spoiled food stuffs in the territories with the aim of murdering Palestinians.

The truth is that, on the incitement front, the current year has not seen that much improvement over last year, when, in December and January, Palestinian television broadcast a religious program calling Jews "the seeds of Satan", and the PLO appointed Mufti of Jerusalem said in a sermon, "Oh, Allah, destroy America for it is ruled by Zionist Jews…Allah will avenge the colonialists who are the descendants of monkeys and pigs".

Just last month, Arafat declared November 2nd as the day to commemorate "the catastrophic consequences of the November 2, 1917 Balfour declaration, which facilitated the creation of the Zionist enemy."

A PA appointed clergyman in Al-Aqsa mosque declared this November, "The Jews are occupying not only Jerusalem, but the whole blessed land from the sea to the river…There is no difference between Jerusalem or Haifa, Lod or Ashqelon…The liberation of this land by Jihad is the responsibility of all Muslims."

And perhaps most worrying is the continued incitement to violence in Palestinian school textbooks. A text last year contained a poem, "In your left hand you carry the Koran and in your right hand an Arab sword…Not one centimetre will be liberated without blood…Therefore, go forward, crying, ‘God is Great.’" A new 1999 text, The New History of the Arabs and the World teaches that "there is a basic similarity between Nazism, Fascism and Zionism…the Zionist movement is racist and aggressive…advocating the liquidation of Palestinians….the Talmud is a book of hatred toward gentiles."

The bottom line is that majority of Palestinians continue to believe some of the same unity and identity-invoking propaganda always used by the Palestinian leadership is fully justified. Given Israel’s "crimes", incitement and hatred is seen as right and proper. It may even be essential.

As Arafat’s adviser on National Political Guidance, Othman Abu Gharbiya, stated in March, "They [the Israelis] talk about incitement and want to kill our people’s spirit and erase our heritage, our truths, our history, our people. [But] the spirit of our people lies in those national inciters and in our hate of the invaders and the invasion. We understand incitement as a call to violence against innocents, but not against others. We are right to believe that the rifle is a means of life and not death."

Such language is of course itself a violation of Israeli-Palestinian accords, but given that he seems to be saying that incitment against and hatred of Israelis is essential to Palestinian national existence, it is doubtful that Othman Abu Gharbiya or those who think like him would care.

The problem for Israel is that it is pointless to make peace with someone who defines his identity by his hatred of you; another excuse for violence will always be found if one is always searching for one.

Arafat seems to have recognised this in recent years, or at least responded to outside pressure. In the early days of Oslo, he often combined careful and restrained speech in English and to foreign media with inflammatory rhetoric in Arabic at Palestinian gatherings. Following several diplomatic incidents, direct incitement by Arafat appears to have now largely ceased. But other officials, the official Palestinian press, radio, television, and education authority have not shown similar restraint.

Unfortunately, Suha Arafat’s outburst was just a particularly public manifestation of an ongoing problem. If it is not repaired, continuing official Palestinian incitement in violation of signed agreements can only damage prospects for genuine peace.

Copyright © AIJAC 1999
Last Updated 3 September, 2001