P. R. Kumaraswamy is a research fellow at the Harry S Truman Research Institute of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

As the above quotation suggests, Bill Clinton’s relations with Monica Lewinsky have puzzled the Middle East in part because residents of the region simply have no experience with such a development. How did politicians and journalists view the controversy and what implications did they draw from it? How do Arabs and Israelis differ in their responses? What significance do their reactions have?

The media has generally tried to be discreet about the specific issues involved in the Lewinsky case. In Israel, the secular media gave the events full coverage and explicitly portrayed the president’s activities; the religious media, in contrast, has dealt with the issue guardedly and tried to avoid detailing what Clinton actually did. At the same time, the details are too titillating to be ignored, even in so prudish a society as Iran, where the senior editor of a weekly, Fakur, was punished for publishing an “offensive picture” of Lewinsky.² A Beirut daily wrote of “the traces President Clinton left on the famous dress after a love night with Monica”³ while a Palestinian commentator wondered that “We never before heard of a coquettish woman who keeps soiled garments to reminisce about past escapades.”⁴ Antagonists gleefully reported the president’s humiliation. The state-controlled Iraqi media noted that he “was stripped of his clothes and his sexual organs were checked to confirm the charges made by Paula Jones.”⁵

Middle Eastern commentators criticized the president’s lapses of esthetic taste. A Pakistani columnist expressed disgust at Clinton’s style, his engaging in “tawdry and sleazy encounters that are normally carried out in motels with their winking neon signs advertising room vacancies, by the hour"; but at least Clinton opted for “a clean-cut American college girl and not a gangster’s moll.”⁶ An Egyptian columnist sniffed at the president’s “inappropriate and unsuitable behavior with any woman he can get his hands on, whether she is as ugly as Paula Jones, as fat as Monica Lewinsky or as old as a friend’s wife.”⁷ Along the same lines, Jerusalem’s Mayor Ehud Olmert added: “I have never met a man with such bad taste in women as Clinton.”⁸

Nor could some of the media resist making up its own elaborations. A Saudi paper stated as fact that Lewinsky would hand over 80 percent of her publishing profits to Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who would use the money to further his anti-Palestinian policies.⁹ A Baghdad daily (published by Saddam Husayn’s son ‘Uday) declared that Clinton would share in the tens of millions of dollars Monica would earn by publishing her memoirs and from “tempting offers by Playboy and other famous sex magazines.”¹⁰

On a more serious level, Middle Easterners took issue with Clinton’s morality and drew conclusions about its symbolism for the United States at large. If Israelis tended to view the Lewinsky matter as “Hillary Clinton’s problem and not the American people’s,”¹¹ an Iranian weekly argued to the contrary that presidents do not have private lives if these are “tainted with promiscuity and infidelity.” Clinton should have known that “his private actions, too, would be under scrutiny and kept his l Ibido in check.”¹²

Some found it business-as-usual that an American president should fabricate. Lies are “an integral part” of the U.S. presidency writes an Iranian commentator, and “a man who confesses that he has lied is not worthy of trust.”¹³ Others claimed that Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon had “knowingly and systematically misled the American public on how the war [in Vietnam] was going,” so Clinton should be judged “on whether he has been a good president and not on any personal failings.”¹⁴

But not all the coverage was negative. An Egyptian newspaper commentary offered its prayers for the president “as he suffers one misfortune after another” and admonished the U.S. media for meddling with his private life.¹⁵ Another wondered whether the American public would ever forgive him so that Clinton can focus his attention on issues that concern them and the rest of the world.¹⁶

Some thought Clinton was singled out and was treated unfairly for his indiscretion. After all, they suggested, “all the rulers who are classified as friends of America and Israel betray their wives and people and have secret and public affairs with the good women citizens all over God’s earth without the fear of a stained dress.”¹⁷ References were often made about past sexual scandals involving American presidents. A Palestinian newspaper deemed Clinton “an angel” compared to President Kennedy and his brother Ted.¹⁸ An Iranian commentator even referred to former first lady Nancy Reagan’s flirtation with Frank Sinatra.¹⁹ Why was Clinton in trouble? Kennedy got away with it because “that was the sixties.”²⁰ Or because “the Republicans do not hesitate to sacrifice their national interest for the sake of Israeli interests.”²¹

In Israel, the moral dimension was largely confined to the religious segment of the population. Many referred to the philandering scandals ancient and modern: from King David to Netanyahu’s confessions of adultery.²² Likud-oriented Israelis, fearing the effects of presidential pressure on their government, perceived Lewinsky in positive terms, as a modern-day Queen Esther “whose intimate relationship with the nation’s rulers saves her people from a horrific fate.”²³ Or, more pungently: “Monica will go down in history as the woman who had sex with an American president and saved an Israeli prime minister.”²⁴

In contrast, Labor Party circles in Israel excused the U.S. president out of friendship for him. Thus, Yitzhak Rabin’s widow Leah affectionately called him “quite a rascal [who] should have been more careful.”²⁵ Also in a sympathetic vein, an ultra-Orthodox member of Israel’s parliament, Avraham Ravitz, felt that if Clinton sincerely repented, the American public “should forgive him and take pride” in this.²⁶

For a region deeply rooted in values such as “family honor,” Lewinsky’s behavior and her confessions are anathema in the Middle East and she came under severe criticism. “Troublemaker” and “shameful woman” are typical descriptions.²⁷ A Gaza daily found her not an innocent victim but someone who got involved with “the handsome” president “with her consent or even at her own initiative.”²⁸ A Cairo daily admonished Lewinsky for her “lucid, lecherous and sordid acts” and described her testimony as “shameful,” one that “no respectable woman, American or not, can contemplate making in broad daylight for millions to hear.”²⁹ Some accused her of enjoying the spectacle and the possible impeachment of the president and of looking forward to making a fortune “writing her memoirs.”³⁰ Even some Israeli commentators reflected similar attitudes. One commentator portrayed her as “a manipulator, a typical golddigger, a groupie from a broken home, the daughter of screwed-up parents who hail from a neighborhood where to sleep with the neighbor’s daughter earns you the key to the city of Los Angeles.”³¹

Calls for impeachment impressed some Middle Easterners. One Saudi writer viewed the whole controversy in a positive light, finding the United States to be a nation “that refuses to have a president who lies.”³² An Iranian commentator noted that the president’s past conduct “would make him quite a likely candidate for impeachment.”³³ Some took the charges seriously, pointing to allegations that Clinton had committed perjury and had asked Lewinsky to lie under oath.³⁴ But many more Middle Easterners were skeptical or bewildered, like the Jordanian writer who wondered whether the fact that the president did “what every man or woman does in an open society like the American society is enough to justify the ousting of a president.”³⁵

Clinton’s continued popularity after the Lewinsky scandal proved to some the West’s moral bankruptcy. Inevitably, Islamist observers saw in this saga signs of “complaisant and relaxed” moral attitudes prevalent in the United States.³⁶ Sheikh `Abdallah Nimr Darwish, leader of the Islamic movement in Israel, found that “What Clinton did with Monica is not considered wrong by U.S. mentality ... because in the West the president’s popularity grows as the number of his paramours increases.”³⁷ An Iranian daily attributes the desire of the American public to forget the scandal to the “decline in Western social values and the accompanying upsurge of corruption in high places.”³⁸

According to one Egyptian commentary, if Clinton scrapes through the crisis,

Commentators often noted how the affair erupted into public view precisely as the president had scheduled meetings with Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat, and as he sought to revive the peace process by pressuring Netanyahu. During a joint media appearance in the White House in mid-January, Arafat watched as the American media grilled the president about the controversy, neglecting Arafat and the reasons that brought him to Washington. To many in the Middle East, this was no accident. “Why was the Monica affair raised twenty-four hours before the sensitive tripartite U.S.-Palestinian-Israeli negotiations?”⁴⁰ asked a Jordanian commentator. A Saudi academic asked why “these women [Lewinsky and Paula Jones] only came out with such statements at this particular time,” then replied to his own question: to blunt American pressure on Israel.⁴¹ Bassam Abu-Sharif, a senior adviser to Arafat, provided further details, noting that Netanyahu discussed with Jerry Falwell, the Christian preacher, “ways of mounting a campaign against Clinton to prevent him from exerting pressure on Israel. Immediately after Netanyahu’s departure Monica Lewinsky and her premeditated scandal emerged.”⁴²

The ability of Netanyahu to push forward on some controversial matters—the construction of new houses at Har Homa in eastern Jerusalem or the demolition of Palestinian houses—is attributed to his exploiting the Lewinsky scandal to “change the rules of the game and to create facts on the ground.”⁴³ State-controlled Syrian media accuse Israel of exploiting “the political vacuum that was caused by the suspicious stain on Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress.”⁴⁴ An Iranian editorial depicts Netanyahu as the sole beneficiary of the Lewinsky scandal because a weakened president “would now not risk trying to pressure Israel over the stalled Middle East peace process.”⁴⁵ In the words of one Iranian commentator, if Clinton is impeached, “none of his successors will dare to adopt an impartial policy in the Middle East.”⁴⁶

This view is also reflected in Israel, though without the conspiratorial trappings. A left-wing member of parliament, Avraham Poraz, warned that the Lewinsky scandal gave Netanyahu a much needed “time out” from the peace process.⁴⁷ A newspaper commentator suggested that Netanyahu “has gained more than anyone else from this affair.”⁴⁸ Netanyahu himself was conspicuously silent at a time when the leaders of many states expressed public support for the president (even giving him a standing ovation at the U.N. General Assembly), dismissing it as a domestic American affair and saying he would not “go into problems that are not related to me.”⁴⁹

Since January 1998 the prospect of Clinton resigning rather than being impeached over the Lewinsky scandal figured prominently in the Middle East. Israelis have discussed the possibility of Vice President Al Gore succeeding Clinton before the next presidential elections in 2000, finding him preferable to Clinton in that he consistently opposes pressuring Israel.⁵⁰ Probably for the same reasons, Arab and Palestinian media are skeptical of Gore, saying he has “fully surrendered to Zionist
pressure.”⁵¹

Media throughout the region paid much attention to Lewinsky being Jewish. An Israeli commentator lamented that “so many Jews are involved in this affair,”⁵² a sentiment that non-Israelis shared, though for different reasons. The Arabs quickly embellished the Jewish angle and spun a conspiracy theory around it. A Syrian daily portrayed Lewinsky as a bomb planted in the White House that “Israel could explode at the appropriate moment.”⁵³ Another commentator called it “a crisis made in Israel, by the Mossad.”⁵⁴ Egyptian media placed Lewinsky at the center of a larger plot that included both actual Jews (Lucianna Goldberg, Michael Isikoff, William Ginsburg) and non-Jews whom they deemed to be Jewish (Paula Jones, Kenneth Starr, Linda Tripp).⁵⁵

Clinton’s refusal to meet Netanyahu during a 1997 visit to the United States plays an outsized role in this theory. According to a Saudi commentary, the Zionists usurp, control, and run the White House; and so they got back at him by revealing “his hidden secrets and published the president’s scandals with the Jewish intern Monica.” The president then acquiesced and Netanyahu behaved like “the master of the White House.”⁵⁶ In the words of a Saudi commentary, Clinton’s “refusal, or ... his declining to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu” was the primary impetus for the Zionist lobby “to dig up these documents at this time.”⁵⁷ Iranian media concurred, with a radio commentary suggesting that the real story was an act of revenge by “influential and powerful Jewish circles” because Netanyahu “was treated very coolly by the White House.” Zionism, the commentary added, “will resort to anything in order to carry out its aims, [including], the impeachment of a President and tarnish his image.”⁵⁸

On the whole, Arab and Persian media see the Lewinsky controversy as proof of the Zionist control over the United States.⁵⁹ The whole affair, writes a Palestinian columnist, was a Jewish attempt “to teach President Clinton a harsh lesson about the need for blind loyalty and obedience to Israel and the American Jewish lobby.” By removing or weakening the president, Israel perhaps seeks “to bring the U.S. elections forward and produce a new president who will be totally impotent and obedient to all of Tel Aviv’s wishes.”⁶⁰ Even if Clinton survives the scandal, one Egyptian commentator warns, he will be no more than “a servant in the court of His Majesty ‘Zionism.’”⁶¹ Clinton was merely a victim “of a dirty conspiracy that prompted an adulteress to keep her stained dress for two years to present it at the right moment as an exhibit.”⁶² Iranian media see the Lewinsky affair as “a deep-rooted conspiracy hatched by a powerful Zionist lobby” aimed at teaching “a lesson to Clinton who tried to be neutral in the Middle East affairs,”⁶³ an unusually warm endorsement of Clinton. Referring to Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, a Saudi editorial charges that “the Zionist lobby ... opened these two files” and raises the possibility that it may similarly fabricate others in the future. This is not difficult in the United States, a country “where criminals and adventurers have huge financial, technological, and professional means, a thirst for power and for tyranny.”⁶⁴

Many in the Middle East who believe Netanyahu is exploiting the Lewinsky scandal to his advantage see this in a larger historical context. Jews, they believe, engage in “opportunistic” and “exploiting” behavior.⁶⁵ Some find this reminiscent of “the well-known contemptible style of Shylock.”⁶⁶

In Pakistan, known for its conspiracist penchant, the United States was portrayed by an Islamist daily as the representative of “vested interests and the Zionist lobby.”⁶⁷ If the United States seeks friends in the Muslim world, “it must break from its shackles of Zionism and perverse Pax Zionica.”⁶⁸ Another Urdu daily sees the scandal as “a punishment” for displeasing the “India-Israel alliance.”⁶⁹ A Tehran Times editorial suggests that the Republicans are exploiting the situation and urges Clinton “to ignore the interests of the Zionists.”⁷⁰ An Egyptian daily also suspects a Republican edge to the conspiracy, hoping to put Vice President Al Gore in office and thereby “give the Republican candidate a good chance in the next elections” because the Lewinsky affair would continue to shake the Democrats.⁷¹

What the Middle Easterners routinely call “the Zionist media” comes under criticism and is often made responsible for Clinton’s predicament. By Zionist media, incidentally, they mean not just those owned and directed by Zionists but those practiced at extracting “whatever financial, political, or media support the Israeli government wants from the United States government, whether the latter wants to supply it or not.”⁷²

Not everyone, however, subscribes to these conspiracy theories. A dissenting voice from Saudi Arabia worries about the consequences of such an approach, even calling it a “psychological disease” and a convenient “coat hanger to hang whatever they cannot hang somewhere else.” Conspiracy theories inflate the importance of things and distort them.⁷³ Another Saudi daily calls the whole scandal a private affair and refuses to accept the notion that the Lewinsky affair is “the work of the Zionist forces and their hidden and ingenious conspiracies.” On the contrary, noting that Clinton gives “Israel and the Zionist forces so much more than any other U.S. president,” it believes Jewish forces in the United States “will play a big role in keeping Bill Clinton in the White House until he finishes his term.”⁷⁴ Another dissenting voice comes from Iran, from an editorial in an English-language daily which urges viewing the world “using logic and common sense instead of developing vague and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.” It holds that the Jewish lobby has no uniform position on the peace process and that a large segment of American Jewry opposes Netanyahu’s policies.⁷⁵ (As usual, the anti-conspiracist argument is more on target.)

Although Israeli spokesmen ridiculed the charges of a Jewish conspiracy, Israeli discussions also focused on the Jewish lobby and its influence. An unnamed Israeli political source observed:

He went on to suggest that support for Israel in the Congress would increase because the Republican fear of losing their majority in the House of Representatives in the November 1998 elections “has dissipated” following the Lewinsky scandal. “If support for Israel is perceived as a way of needling the administration, [the Republicans] will be more inclined that way in the next two years.”⁷⁶ With unusual frankness, Israel’s American-born ambassador at the United Nations urged Jews in the United States to speak out against administration pressure on Israel. Speaking at the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Dore Gold remarked: “When I was an American Jew and the administration did something scandalous or something that threatened Israeli security, I knew what to do. I did not keep quiet.”⁷⁷

Others focused on the implications for American power. Some see the scandal as having fearsome consequences—even “worse than the sexual stupidities"—for Clinton would be tempted to seek “cheap victories” at Iraq’s expense. Nor did his departure augur well, for that would usher in a successor with questionable ability to handle world crises.⁷⁸ A retired Pakistani general claims to be frightened that the leader of the most powerful nation, with its huge nuclear arsenal, “is wanting in moral traits and sense of judgment.”⁷⁹ Likewise, an editorial in a London-based Arabic daily finds the president’s admission a bad omen for the Arabs because as a “wounded tiger,” the president might “embark on political stupidities that might be worse than the scandal stupidity.”⁸⁰ An Israeli commentator remarked that earlier it was feared that the Lewinsky affair was “paralyzing” the administration. After the bombings in East Africa, “everyone is worried that the Lewinsky affair is compelling Clinton to overact.” He went on to claim that whatever the president “does and does not do will look like a desperate attempt to erase the stain on Monica’s dress.”⁸¹

In contrast, some analysts worry about the president’s weakness. A Jordanian daily recalled Richard Nixon in 1973-74, and especially his triumphal tour of the region, when Arab leaders received him as a man who could bring about a just and lasting solution, when in fact “the hero was no more than a cat dying in Washington.” It warned against making a similar mistake with Clinton “while he is dying at the hands of Monica.”⁸² An Egyptian daily found that the controversy had overwhelmed Clinton.⁸³ If he survived the crisis, he would be a lame duck president.⁸⁴ An Israeli commentator lamented that the “defender of the free world has simply ceased to function, got lost in the captivating string of episodes from a pornographic soap opera bearing Monica Lewinsky’s name.”⁸⁵ Even Netanyahu talked about his feeling that the United States “is busy with other things and does not stand firm on its vital interests, which in many respects, are also our vital interests, as they are those of the other democracies of the world.”⁸⁶

Middle Easterners inevitably linked U.S. policy in their region—the peace process, the Iraqi crisis in February 1998, the U.S. missile attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan—to Clinton’s ongoing scandal.

Peace Process. Initially, Middle Easterners expected the Lewinsky affair not to affect the peace process; days after the controversy broke out, Prime Minister Netanyahu said as much.⁸⁷ Their position began to change when the controversy refused to die down, and many were convinced a weakened president would not “risk trying to pressure Israel over the stalled Middle East peace process.”⁸⁸ Drowned in scandals, Clinton’s concerns “are now limited to saving himself and his reputation from Monica Lewinsky’s nets, not saving the regional peace process. He does not want to hear a single word about the Middle East.”⁸⁹ An unnamed Israeli official worried that, being preoccupied with the controversy, the president was “not prepared to pressure Palestinian Authority chief Yasir Arafat to implement his January 1997 undertakings.”⁹⁰ Michael Kleiner, a Israeli member of parliament who leads the Land of Israel front, summed up the ruling coalition’s position: “What interests me is Clinton’s pressure on Israel, not his pressure on Monica.”⁹¹

Iraq. When the Iraqi authorities, several times in 1998, refused to permit unfettered and unrestricted access to the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), Israelis tended to see this defiance as an Iraqi attempt to capitalize on the Lewinsky scandal. The expectation was that, paralyzed by the Lewinsky controversy and the problems arising from it, the president would be unable to act decisively against Iraq.⁹² But, then, when he confronted Iraq, Israelis hailed his action as reflecting the American national consensus.⁹³

Elsewhere in the Middle East, the same development prompted a different set of conclusions. Arabs saw the Lewinsky scandal as the reason for President Clinton to enhance his credentials as a leader, and consequently worried he would exploit opportunities presented by Saddam Husayn. That American missiles landed on Iraq the very day Clinton’s impeachment hearing began was met with a knowing wink. Led by the Iraqi media, many Arab and Islamic commentators viewed Saddam Husayn as a handy punching bag for U.S. presidents with domestic problems or a dip in popularity.⁹⁴ Also, that President Clinton lied about his personal life provided the basis to discredit his claims about Iraqi capabilities and intentions. “If he lies to his family and people, will he tell the truth to the United Nations?” went the argument.

Afghanistan and Sudan bombing. Most Middle Easterners rejected the American explanation that missile attacks in August on sites in Afghanistan and Sudan were in retaliation for the bombings of two American embassies in East Africa that killed at least 263 persons and injured over 5,000. They condemned the decision to attack targets associated with the Saudi terrorist Usama bin Ladin as “hasty” and some interpreted the bombing campaign as a “war for Monica’s eyes.” As in the United States, the Hollywood movie Wag the Dog (in which a president fakes a war to hide a sex scandal) was often cited. Such negative portrayals had greatest prominence in the Sudanese media but were widely shared; even the Iranians, nearly at war with the Taliban, rejected Clinton’s logic.⁹⁵ One Pakistani commentator denounced “the morally bankrupt” president who was leading “a terrorist state” in attacking Afghanistan.⁹⁶ An Egyptian commentator spun an elaborate conspiracy theory, suggesting that the embassy bombings in East Africa were carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to “divert what is happening in Washington.”⁹⁷ Likewise a Pakistani commentator proclaimed that “these attacks were carried out” by the Mossad.⁹⁸

The Lewinsky affair aroused deep divisions and total disagreement among Americans, to the point that no issue in memory prompted such thorough and passionate incomprehension of the other side’s position. In response, Middle Easterners view the wildly diverse views with utter amazement and more than a bit of amusement. It is possible to find certain broad, though not consistent, threads in their arguments.

Israel and the rest of the region respond to the same distant events in hugely different ways. Israeli opinion echoed that found in the United States, with Labor and Likud members roughly paralleling Democrats and Republicans. The proponents of the Oslo process feared that the scandal would reduce the president’s ability to accelerate the peace process and those skeptical about the peaceful intentions of the Palestinians felt relieved by Clinton’s domestic preoccupations. In contrast, the majority of the Arab and Islamic media, focusing on the Jewish personalities, real or imaginary involved in the scandal, perceived the Lewinsky affair as a Jewish plot against Clinton. In this, they, too, echoed the U.S. debate, which allowed for a “vast right-wing conspiracy”⁹⁹ against the president, but not a Jewish one.

Middle Easterners looked at the president’s problems as they would in their own societies—as personal problems in Israel, as moral ones in the Muslim world. This goes far to explain the near-consensus, even among those Iranian commentators otherwise critical of the United States: that Republicans had blown the controversy way out of proportion. Middle Eastern commentaries virtually ignored the legal issues—lying under oath, obstruction of justice.

Above all, each commentator tended to view the scandal in a parochial way, worried about how it might detrimentally affect his own interests. The president’s attitude towards Prime Minister Netanyahu often became their touchstone. Most Arab and Iranian media adopted a sympathetic attitude towards Clinton’s predicaments primarily because of his perceived even-handled approach towards the peace process. Hence even those who otherwise questioned his moral authority, wanted him to be judged by his public performance and not by the Lewinsky scandal.

¹ Al-Hayat al-Jadida (Gaza), Aug. 21, 1998. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials derive from the electronic version of the Foreign Broadcast Information Service—Near East and South Asia (FBIS-NES). Some translations have been slightly amended.
² Islamic Revolution News Agency, Mar. 17, 1998; MEQ, June 1998, p. 77.
³ An-Nahar (Beirut), Aug. 5, 1998.
⁴ Al-Hayat al-Jadida, Aug. 21, 1998.
⁵ Al-Jumhuriya, (Baghdad), Jan. 31, 1998.
⁶ Dawn, (Karachi), Feb. 2, 1998.
⁷ Al-Akhbar (Cairo), Aug. 25, 1998.
⁸ Yedi‘ot Aharonot (Tel Aviv), Jan. 25, 1998.
⁹ Al-Jazira (Riyadh), Aug. 15, 1998.
¹⁰ Babil (Baghdad), Aug. 30, 1998.
¹¹ Ma‘ariv (Tel Aviv), Jan. 26, 1998.
¹² Islamic Revolution News Agency, Aug. 20, 1998.
¹³ Kayhan International (Tehran), Aug. 26, 1998.
¹⁴ Dawn, Feb. 2, 1998.
¹⁵ Al-Jumhuriya (Cairo), Aug. 8, 1998.
¹⁶ Middle East News Agency (Cairo), Aug. 19, 1998.
¹⁷ Al-Hayat al-Jadida, Aug. 21, 1998.
¹⁸ Ibid.
¹⁹ Tehran Times, Aug. 19, 1998.
²⁰ The News (Islamabad), Jan. 26, 1998.
²¹ Tehran Times, Aug. 19, 1998.
²² Ma‘ariv, Jan. 26, 1998; Ha’aretz (Tel Aviv), Jan. 27, 1998; The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 30, 1998;and Ha’aretz, Aug. 18, 1998.
²³ Jonathan Broder, “Monica Lewinsky: Bibi’s Queen Esther?” The Jerusalem Report, Feb. 19, 1998, pp. 34-37.
²⁴ Ha’aretz, Aug. 18, 1998.
²⁵ Yedi‘ot Aharonot, Sept. 13, 1998.
²⁶ Ibid.
²⁷ Al-Hayat al-Jadida, Feb. 12, 1998; Al-Jumhuriya (Cairo), Sept. 13, 1998.
²⁸ Al-Hayat al-Jadida, Aug. 21, 1998.
²⁹ Al-Jumhuriya (Cairo), Sept. 13, 1998.
³⁰ Al-Akhbar, Sept. 13, 1998.
³¹ Ma‘ariv (Hayom supplement), Jan. 27, 1998.
³² ‘Ukaz (Jedda), Sept. 5, 1998.
³³ Kayhan International, Jan. 27, 1998.
³⁴ Ibid.; The News, Jan. 26, 1998.
³⁵ Ar-Ra’y (Amman), Jan. 24, 1998.
³⁶ Kayhan International, Jan. 27, 1998.
³⁷ Al-Hayat al-Jadida, Aug. 22, 1998.
³⁸ Islamic Revolution News Agency, Aug. 19, 1998.
³⁹ Al-Jumhuriya (Cairo), Sept. 13, 1998.
⁴⁰ Ar-Ra’y, Jan. 24, 1998.
⁴¹ Al-Jazira, Aug. 15, 1998.
⁴² Ash-Sharq al-Awsat (London), May 13, 1998. In Israel itself, Prime Minister Netanyahu, courting that segment of the Republicans hostile to Clinton and thereby infuriating the administration has come under severe criticisms. See Hirsh Goodman, “The Wrong Enemy,” The Jerusalem Report, June 8, 1998, p. 56; The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 30, 1998; and Ha’aretz, Feb. 1, 1998.
⁴³ Among others see Ath-Thawra, Aug. 19, 1998.
⁴⁴ Ibid.
⁴⁵ Islamic Revolution News Agency, Aug. 20, 1998.
⁴⁶ Tehran Times, Aug. 17, 1998.
⁴⁷ Yedi‘ot Aharonot, Jan. 25, 1998.
⁴⁸ Ha’aretz, Aug. 17, 1998. Similarly another commentator remarked that India’s nuclear tests have also helped Netanyahu as they diverted the administration’s interest in the peace process. Ma‘ariv, May 14, 1998.
⁴⁹ Israel’s Channel 1 TV, Sept. 16, 1998.
⁵⁰ Yedi‘ot Aharonot, Jan. 26, 1998; The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 30, 1998.
⁵¹ Al-Jumhuriya (Cairo), Aug. 8, 1998.
⁵² Ha’aretz, Jan. 27, 1998. Furthermore it is essential to remember that on Jan. 23, within days after the media reported the affairs, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith warned that the involvement of Lewinsky and “other Jews in the scandal” might trigger a new wave of antisemitism in the United States. Ha’aretz, Jan. 25, 1998.
⁵³ Ath-Thawra, Aug. 29, 1998.
⁵⁴ Ibid., Oct. 10, 1998.
⁵⁵ Al-Ahram (Cairo), Feb. 3, 1998; Al-Akhbar, Sept. 16, 1998.
⁵⁶ Al-Jazira, Mar. 25, 1998.
⁵⁷ Ibid., Aug. 15, 1998. See also Al-Hayat al-Jadida, Jan. 26, 1998.
⁵⁸ Voice of Islamic Republic of Iran, Jan. 26, 1998.
⁵⁹ Kayhan International, Feb. 1, 1998. See also Tehran Times, Jan. 28, 1998.
⁶⁰ Al-Hayat al-Jadida, Jan. 27, 1998. The idea that the scandal would bring forward elections suggests the writer’s depth of knowledge of American politics.
⁶¹ Al-Akhbar, Sept. 16, 1998.
⁶² Al-Hayat al-Jadida, Aug. 21, 1998.
⁶³ Tehran Times, Aug. 17, 1998.
⁶⁴ Al-Jazira, Jan. 24, 1998.
⁶⁵ Ibid.; see also Aug. 29, 1998.
⁶⁶ Ath-Thawra (Damascus), Aug. 29, 1998. A Fatah commentary also compared U.S. Special Middle East Coordinator Dennis Ross to Shylock. Al-Hayat al-Jadida, Sept. 16, 1998.
⁶⁷ The Muslim (Islamabad), Aug. 10, 1998.
⁶⁸ Ibid., Aug. 22, 1998.
⁶⁹ Ibid.; see also Nawa-i-Waqt (Rawalpindi), Oct. 15, 1998.
⁷⁰ Tehran Times, Aug. 19, 1998.
⁷¹ Al-Akhbar, Sept. 13, 1998.
⁷² Among others see Al-Jazira, Aug. 15, 1998.
⁷³ ‘Ukaz, Sept. 5, 1998.
⁷⁴ Ibid.
⁷⁵ Islamic Revolution News Agency, Sept. 16, 1998.
⁷⁶ Globes (Tel Aviv), Sept. 13, 1998. See also Ha’aretz, May 8, 1998; The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 28, 1998.
⁷⁷ Yedi‘ot Aharonot, May 8, 1998.
⁷⁸ Al-Quds al-Arabi (London), Sept. 14, 1998.
⁷⁹ Dawn, Sept. 1, 1998.
⁸⁰ Al-Quds al-‘Arabi, Sept. 14, 1998.
⁸¹ Yedi‘ot Aharonot, Aug. 21, 1998.
⁸² Ar-Ra’y, Jan. 24, 1998.
⁸³ Middle East News Agency, Aug. 19, 1998. See also Al-Quds (Jerusalem), Aug. 19, 1998.
⁸⁴ Al-Quds al-Arabi, Sept. 14, 1998.
⁸⁵ Ma‘ariv, Aug. 18, 1998.
⁸⁶ Israel’s Channel 1 TV, Sept. 16, 1998.
⁸⁷ Yedi‘ot Aharonot, Jan. 26, 1998.
⁸⁸ Islamic Revolution News Agency, Aug. 20, 1998.
⁸⁹ Al-Quds al-Arabi, July 31, 1998. See also Al-Ahram, Aug. 5, 1998.
⁹⁰ Globes, Sept. 13, 1998.
⁹¹ Yedi‘ot Aharonot, Jan. 25, 1998.
⁹² The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 30, 1998; Ma‘ariv, Feb. 24, 1998;
⁹³ Hatzofe (Tel Aviv), Jan. 29, 1998.
⁹⁴ Among others see Al-Jumhuriya (Baghdad), Jan. 31, 1998; Al-Ahram, Feb. 3, 1998; Al-Majd (Amman), Feb. 2, 1998; Al-Jumhuriya (Baghdad), Feb. 1, 1998; Al-Jumhuriya (Cairo), Feb. 1, 1998; Ad-Dustur (Amman), Aug. 5, 1998; Al-Jumhuriya (Cairo), Aug. 5, 1998; Al-Quds al-Arabi, July 20, 1998; Babil, July 2, 1998; Ath-Thawra, Mar. 14, 1998; Al-Musawwar (Cairo), Feb. 20, 1998; Ash-Sharq al-Awsat, Feb. 13, 1998.
⁹⁵ Al-Watan al-‘Arabi (Paris), Aug. 28, 1998; Al-Akhbar, Aug. 25, 1998; Al-Hayat al-Jadida, Aug. 22, 1998; Interview of Sudanese Foreign Minister Mustafa Uthman Ismail, Radio Monte Carlo(Paris), Aug. 23, 1998; Babil, Aug. 25, 1998; Al-Qadisiya (Baghdad), Aug. 24, 1998; Al-Quds, Aug. 22, 1998; The Muslim, Aug. 22, 1998, Aug. 24, 1998; The News, Aug. 25, 1998; La Stampa (Turin), Aug. 24, 1998; The Frontier Post (Peshawar), Aug. 19, 1998; The Muslim, Aug. 10, 1998; Al-Wafd (Cairo), Aug. 25, 1998.
⁹⁶ The Muslim, Aug. 24, 1998.
⁹⁷ Al-Wafd, Aug. 9, 1998;
⁹⁸ The Muslim, Oct. 24, 1998.
⁹⁹ Hillary Rodham Clinton on NBC’s “Today Show,” Jan. 27, 1998.