Agree with Kenneth Besig's calibration re: Ross v Indyk; however...

Submitted by mariana (United States), Mar 19, 2007 at 22:28

I think you have not looked at the probability that Ross and Indyk's membership in the permanent foreign policy establishment in the US is the motivating reason for the positions they take. No matter that they should [and probably do] know better, they will always find the fall back position which will ensure their continued "acceptance" by this powerful club.

The US State Dept, CIA and other intelligence orgs have been historically Arabist, and old habits are hard to break - no matter the facts on the ground, the morality or the stakes involved. Because GW did not swallow their siren song whole, he has been maligned, undermined; his policies subverted, and his national secrets leaked by this group with impunity; they're quite possibly beyond reach of the law!

His Secretaries of State have [absolutely in Powell's case, and apparently in Condi's] been co-opted and redirected, to the point where they are a danger to America and Israel. This, I find quite frightening. Having watched Peres, lo these many years and Olmert since Sharon was tragically struck down, assuming that their objective is the defense and survival of Israel, I see no strength or rational method to their functioning.

Playing half-assed games with weasel words may be great "diplomacy," but it misleads those who don't understand the questions or the problems, thus undermining Israel's position. That-is-to-say, it exacerbates attempts to justify or explain the nuances and realities on the ground in the Near and Middle East, even to one who is agnostic or even putatively pro-Israel [as liberal Am. Jews claim to be]. American Jews who damned well ought to know better, are lulled by these euphemisms and "pc" pretense into believing that there is a viable "negotiating partner" and that more "accommodation" will yield positive results!

Remember, 87% of American Jewry voted into Majority these left wing anti-Iraq, anti-war, anti-Israel, anti-American democrats [who blatantly deny and refuse to acknowledge that we're in a World War to preserve Western Civilization against militant, lunatic Islamo-fascist Jihadi barbarians, who declare they will obliterate Israel first and then take down America]. That vote for Dems in 2006, emasculating Bush and setting him up for 2 years of Hearings Ad Infinitum... was a direct rejection of his belief that aggressive self-defense [for US and Israel] was necessary in this post 9/11 world.

It repudiated Bush's having set aside Ross and Indyks positions [by refusing to deal with Arafat or Hamas] and for his "hard core" belief that only strength will succeed here; his having been the lone voice [and vote] in the entire world to back Israel's right to self defense and incursion into S.Lebanon; his buying time for IDF to do what they had to do, are clear examples of that "hard core." That Kadima tied IDF hands and enjoined them from doing what they knew they should have done in the way they knew to do it, was beyond Bush's control. And, alas, Israel will pay for that pusillanimous stupidity before this is over.

I'm clearly with Daniel Pipes on these issues; I have less patience and my positions are probably even tougher than his. Looking at behaviors and outcomes, it should be understood that for Bush, the line of least resistance and most popularity and "personal approval," is to accept advice closer to Ross and Indyk's, than his own inclinations. If Israel's leadership refuse to take strong, hard core positions for the adequate and appropriate defense of their own country, they should not expect Bush to continue to do so at his expense, in their behalf, indefinitely. mariana

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".