Posted on 03/20/2006 4:16:27 AM PST by veronica
Summers flatly refused to divest or countenance this appeal.
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.
What "Elders"?
And what evidence is there that their personal opinions were not in accord with those of the administrations they served?
Ross has written a book, The Missing Peace : The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace , which provides his own insights. From a WaPo review:
"Ross saves some of his toughest criticism for the second Bush administration's failure to engage in the peace process. From the beginning, Ross argues, President Bush and his advisers mistakenly believed that because nothing could be done to improve the situation, it was better to do nothing. But Ross says Bush denied to Israelis and Palestinians America's most important gifts: its energy and its sense of optimism. When things are going badly, American involvement becomes even more crucial, he argues, because it can help prevent a bad situation from becoming worse. And he coolly picks apart the fallacies and lackluster execution of Bush's subsequent diplomatic initiative, the so-called Roadmap for Peace, that have made this effort a source of derision in Washington, Jerusalem and capitals throughout Europe and the Middle East."
A Squandered Opportunity By Martin Indyk
There is not an ambassador, political appointee or career, who has not had some differences of opinion with the existing administration over a foreign policy issue. It goes with the territory. There is always a tension between the folks in the field and the Washington establishment. In the end, Washington always wins.
What possible relevance to this discussion does the service of his daughter on a kibbutz have?
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.
Negotiating with Arafat was a mistake to begin with. It was doomed from the start.
When you come to the discussion with pre-conceived ideas that anyone Jewish has divided loyalties and thus supports Israel to the max, everything else follows.
US Jews often think that the worst candidate for supporting Israel is a Jew. There is a history going back to Treasury Secretary Morgenthau under Roosevelt of playing down any Jewish or Israel interest so as to counter the ubiquitous charge of dual loyalties. Kissinger himself commented on this when he held Nixon back from coming to Israel's aid in the Yom Kippur War.
If you just look at the behavior, Indyk was no Israel booster. He is not liked by the Israeli military or defense sphere.
"The very mention of Indyk, who served two stints as ambassador to Israel, sends shudders down the spine of senior members of the Israel defense and foreign policy establishment. For the past year, Indyk, in his new capacity as the head of the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution, has conducted a campaign to dispatch U.S. troops to intervene in the Middle East conflict. Indyk has gone so far as to say that the U.S. should sent troops or create a protectorate over the West Bank and Gaza. Such a step would place the U.S. in a virtual state of war with the Israeli army, which has always viewed some of the West Bank and Gaza as vital to the security concerns of the state of Israel."
...........
In 1994, journalist Haim Shibi of the Yediot Aharonot newspaper reported that in 1987, Indyk had convinced more than 150 members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment that Israel should unilaterally withdraw from territories gained in 1967 Six Day War. Indyk oversaw every step of the disastrous Oslo process with this precise policy in mind of Israel giving up land vital to her defense.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14474
Ross is a little more favorable in that post Oslo, after the fact as it were, he has publicly acknowledged that Arafat never intended to make peace no matter how good the terms were. He was there so he ought to know.
"typical State Dept. bureaucrats" that about covers it.
However,in the interest of honesty,I also think that he was a regular bull in a china shop,rude,arrogant and taking whatever advantage he could from whatever position he had,on top of that. He probably offended so many individuals and groups on a continuing basis that to believe his position was jeopardized by his remarks on that issue is to go far too lightly on him.
From what I could figure,and if I am right,then,had I been a member of the governing board at Harvard he'd have been out on his ear for championing the defense of his good friend Schiefly? for the abuses he and his wife (I think) and another couple from academia perpetrated in Russia. It seems Harvard had to spend thirty million to undo some of the damages that these "consultants" from Harvard did while serving as quasi-official advisers to the Russian government in Russia after the fall of communism. I remember reading about it at the time and was so disgusted with their unbelievable duplicities and worse. Somehow I thought Al Gore was involved in it too. I will have to look it up.
The bottom line was that despite his asking for forgiveness from the homosexual community for the treatment of homosexuals at Harvard in the '20's,truly pandering to that population,he was undone by their usual allies in the feminist movement. It is true that they could have been set off by their handlers,in this case the Mideastern Muslim sympathizers,but in his case,I doubt it. I think he was a genuinely dislikeable person.
The really sad part of the entire affair is that what he said about women was but a shadow of what could be said on the subject of women and the hard sciences. In fact,he merely said the issue should be looked at,I would have preferred that his exit would have been the result of far more troubling behaviors on his part.
I'm in total agreement with that assertion.
"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
woops. meant to ping you here.
Summers also supported ROTC. You can just imagine how that endeared him to the faculty.
But this article claims that his opposition to Israel divestment was "the nail in the coffin."
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/benshapiro/2006/02/22/187402.html
I'm not a stickler for pings.
As long as I read your comment, which I enjoyed.
:-)
There were many reasons for Summers difficulties and subsequent departure, not the least of which were his table manners, or lack thereof.
There's a book by Richard Bradley that came out about 6 months ago that gives some insight into the unfortunate mess. Bradley is a liberal but the book is interesting.
I'd much rather have a rational, intelligent, pragmatic liberal-willing to offend the entrenched Marxist notions and cultural relativism that characterizes so much of modern academe-who is occasionally brusque, than a cipher-an unremarkable, bland leftbot-like Derek Bok, who is more agreeable to hard-core ideologues who serve as trustees, or the Red Diaper Babies that have nested within Harvard's faculty.
Summers's confrontational manner was absolutely necessary.
He told the entrenched interests of Harvard what they needed to hear, not what they wanted to hear.
He told them that this university was squandering its endowment on tangential projects that had nothing to do with education.
He was right.
He told them that radical chic professors like Cornel West needed to do legitimate scholarly reasearch, which was anathema to those very same overcrendentialed, underqualified sock puppets.
He was absolutely right about that too.
He told them that radical gender feminists should not be allowed to impose strict numerical quotas according to sex, and not merit.
Before he retreated from that position, he was correct about that.
Why do you think the student body-which hasn't had the time to be marinated in warmed-over Marxism and politically correct groupthink-admired him so much?
The failing of the Summers administration is that he did not stand up for his own values when they were under assault.
He should have stood his ground, not knuckled under to the braying, noxious harpies, the rainbow flaggers, and the red fascists, who now have one more scalp to add to their collection of free-thinkers who've been vanquished by the totalitarian brigades.
Mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.