When Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton Insulted Palestinian Culture

Anyone who doubts that the media are intent on defeating Mitt Romney need only compare their coverage of his brief, innocuous comments about Israeli and Palestinian cultural differences with Hillary Clinton's remarks on the same subject when she ran for president.

Sen. Clinton's blunt condemnation of the "hate-filled, violent" Palestinian culture makes Romney's speech in Israel, in which he briefly noted the link between culture and prosperity, seem truly mild by comparison -- yet only Romney's statement was treated as a scandal by the media.

Clinton, then the frontrunner for the presidential nomination, joined with Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) to highlight how the "moderate" Palestinian Authority undermines any chance for peace by instilling hatred and glorifying murder in school textbooks:    

Clinton called the textbooks "disturbing," adding that the content "profoundly poisons the mind of these children."

"Hate has no place in the curriculum of schools and the glorification of violence has no place in the education of children," she said, calling on the Palestinian Authority to repudiate the texts it has already approved.

"... You cannot build a peaceful, stable, safe future on such a hate-filled, violent and radical foundation."

The report Clinton helped publicize found that Palestinian indoctrination of children includes inciting hatred against Israel, vilifying Jews, praising America's enemies as "brave resistance" fighters, accusing the U.S. of nefarious intentions in its involvements overseas, labeling Israel imperialistic, and denying its legitimacy as a state (essentially the checklist of items Barack Obama looks for when choosing a church to attend).

As a result of the unsettling education Clinton gained from her in-depth examination of Palestinian culture in partnership with PMW, she claimed that it was virtually impossible for Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to be a peace partner while he was promoting a culture of "child abuse."  (How rude of her.  She certainly disqualified herself for any future diplomatic role.)

"There are no good options," she told the Jerusalem Post, her eyes having been opened (at least temporarily) to the inconvenient truth that the Fatah and Hamas terror factions share the same beliefs and goals.

Romney, at least in that particular speech, did not similarly emphasize the long history of Palestinian leadership (and the huge majority of the population that elects them) encouraging, committing, and celebrating the senseless murder of innocent civilians.  He did not mention the PA's death penalty for selling property to Jews; the acting speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, on PA television, calling for the murder of every last Jew and American; or a Fatah official admitting that terror on a grand scale will resume when Fatah is "capable," and that "our goal has never been peace[.]"  Romney's comment was the equivalent of politely noting that due to cultural differences between Colorado theater shooter James Holmes and his neighbors, he has earned less money than they have for the past couple of weeks.

All of which brings us back to the breathtaking difference in media coverage.  While that one line in Romney's speech was labeled a diplomatic blunder, a disastrous gaffe, and even "deeply offensive" by the mainstream media (who successfully placed him on the defensive once again), Clinton's far more blistering rhetoric was a non-story that barely turns up at all in an internet search.

None of this is surprising, coming after so many prominent political reporters were found to have colluded to cover up unwanted news such as the Reverend Wright story.  Obama's election was openly celebrated by the New York Times and by NBC, which sold "Yes We Did" t-shirts.

The media's mission is to destroy Romney personally by creating a negative caricature, and in their zeal, they no longer even bother to be logical or consistent about it.  PBS' Mark Shields echoed the narrative shared by many of his colleagues when he said, "... what you have with Romney is you have an awkward, emotionally detached, sort of personally inept candidate who has not been able to connect with voters."  Shields' comment was stunning because he said it on April 13, three days after Santorum's exit clinched the nomination for Romney (much sooner than Obama did the same in 2008).  Similarly, Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post depicted Santorum's collapse and Romney's victory as evidence of a failure for Romney: "... it's that lack of Santorum's authenticity that's making Romney a hard sell for just about anyone."

Paradoxically, the media mocked Romney as a panderer who tries to be all things to all people, and then vilified him for not pandering when his straight talk at the NAACP convention and in a British interview inevitably displeased a few people.  He's unfit for office because he's a bully (a talking point eagerly repeated by the Obama campaign), and also unfit because he's a wimp.  And it's a certainty that virtually everything he says and does from now until November 6 will be reported as a damaging gaffe or a blunder.

Edward Olshaker is a longtime freelance journalist whose work has appeared in History News Network, The Jewish Press, FrontPage Magazine, and other publications.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com