By that definition, 90% of the American public could be described as "pro-Israel."
Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk-regardless of their religion-were typical State Dept. bureaucrats.
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.
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.
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.
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.