Was the First Lady Meddling or Muddling?

Speaking Thursday to a group of Israeli and Palestinian youths brought together for the express purpose of forging personal ties in the troubled Middle East, Hillary Rodham Clinton stated her view that it would be in the long-term interest of the region for Palestine to be a state. The First Foot--or at least the foot of the first lady--has stepped in it, and the diplomats are scurrying to clean up.

Within minutes, the White House issued a statement claiming that these remarks were Mrs. Clinton’s personal views and that the administration’s position on this delicate diplomatic matter remained unchanged. But it was already too late; the remarks had set off a firestorm in the Middle East and around the U.S.

Palestinians and others in the Arab world welcomed this unexpected statement as evidence that at long last the Americans had come over to their position. Many in Israel and in this country, however, saw these words as but the latest effort by the Clinton administration to pressure the government of Israel into compromising its security.

The one thing both sides had in common appeared to be their rejection of the possibility, more likely probability, that Mrs. Clinton was speaking only for herself and had stepped into this minefield inadvertently.

Indeed, those who are inclined to see conspiracies at work are having a field day. But it is not at all clear why the Clinton administration would turn to a nonexpert with no background in the region at the particular moment.

It is even less clear why President Clinton and his advisors would decide to intentionally raise the specter of a Palestinian state--among the most sensitive issues in all of the volatile Middle East--at the same time they are trying to persuade a reluctant Israel to hand over 13% more of the occupied West Bank and enter into final status talks.

This latest flap is a reminder that words can deliver unintended messages. Mrs. Clinton’s remarks are sure to increase Israeli suspicion of American intentions and make the Israeli government that much more wary of what the president has in store for them. And her statement is sure to increase the Arab view that the U.S. government is sympathetic to their cause and can be counted on to pressure Israel.

This isn’t the first time that words have come to affect U.S.-Israeli relations. In the spring of 1989, during the first meeting between President George Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, the sensitive issue of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories arose. Bush made clear his belief that settlements were an obstacle to peace and building should halt. Shamir, who strongly disagreed, said there was “no problem.” Shamir left the Oval Office thinking he had won Bush over to his position, that settlements were a minor matter and would constitute no real problem for peace. Bush thought that Shamir understood the political costs of settlements. When Israel continued building settlements, what had been up to then a political disagreement became a personal one.

Nor is miscommunication limited to Americans and Israelis. Iranians were no doubt incensed that their wrestlers sent here recently as a gesture of good will were detained at the airport and fingerprinted like criminals. Those in Iran advocating a rapprochement with the “Great Satan” were embarrassed and no doubt left wondering if this was a mix-up caused by some overzealous Customs official or something more sinister.

What is the lesson? Words--both what is said and what is left out--can often have an impact beyond what is intended. This is an argument for Americans to exercise great care. But the lesson is just as important for those listening. It is all too easy to read into the most innocent or inadvertent statement a message that was never intended. The process of making peace in the Middle East is sufficiently difficult without adding confusion to the mix.