They weren't career diplomats or typical State bureaucrats. As an almost 28 year career State Department bureaucrat, I say that advisedly. I can recall talking to Ross while he was on one of his trips to the Middle East. If I recall correctly, one of his kids worked a summer on a kibbutz.
I'm not saying they're necessarily bad people, only that your description of them-and the implications of this study-are not accurate representations of the political beliefs these men hold.
I will only say that I don't consider either one of them to be totally objective any more than I would if Ted Kennedy were mediating the crisis in Northern Ireland. As far as the study is concerned, I will read it and form my own judgments about its accuracy and objectivity.
In other words, they bent over backwards in order to appease the Arab world, while doing everything in their capacity to convince Isreal to give up even more of its land in futile "land for peace" negotiations.
Neither one is a free agent in these discussions. The official US position is developed in the NSC, WH, and interagency fora. Ross and Indyk had to tow the administration line.
What possible relevance to this discussion does the service of his daughter on a kibbutz have?
There are lots of kibbutzim in Israel, many of them created by left wing Mapai/Labor settlers, whose views on the Middle East peace process were extremely dovish.
The fact that Ross and Indyk blame Arafat for the breakdown in the Camp David II talks does not make them Likudniks.
It only means that they are in agreement with the vast majority of political observers and foreign policy analysts, who reached an identical conclusion.
The only people who thought Israel was to blame-even though it acquiesced to over 95% of the demands made by the PNA-were the ones living in the Muslim world, or their sympathizers in EUrabia.
"If I recall correctly, one of his kids worked a summer on a kibbutz."
and
"It was meant to show Ross' personal involvement with Israel. As he said, he is a "proud Jew," not that there is anything wrong with that."
Wow, I heard this guy at State had a daughter who tromped around France for the summer. And State wanted to go to the UN before going into Iraq. I don't think he could have been objective either.
Do you know about all the vacations of Government official's children?
"As he said, he is a "proud Jew"
So I guess a "proud Catholic" like Sam Alito should get an automatic DQ from the bench? He could not possibly be "objective" on choice. I seem to remember that argument.
"I will only say that I don't consider either one of them to be totally objective"
Objectivity in this case and many cases is overrated and the word could be substituted for moral equivalency and multiculturalism.
Do you want to take the "objective" stand between "militants" in Iraq and the US forces?
How about between the 7/11 "militants" in the UK and the British government?
As to Ted Kennedy, my problem is with his loyalty to this country not his Irish heritage.
..................
The problem with Jews in high government positions is that the slander of dual loyalty causes some to bend over backwards to avoid any such appearance.
"Kissinger: "Well, Rogers thinks we should declare a national day of mourning. I'm against even that. It's not our day of mourning, Mr. President. It's easy enough now to do a number of grandstanding ... And also, God I am Jewish. I've had 13 members of my family killed. So I can't be insensitive to this. But I think you have to think also of the anti-Semitic woes in this country. If we let our policy be run by the Jewish community ..."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1586182/posts