To her credit, the Times' hardworking Elisabeth Bumiller got the scoop on George Mitchell being considered as Mid East envoy. Key grafs:
the Bush administration, that called for a freeze on Israeli
settlements in the West Bank and a Palestinian crackdown on terrorism.
Other
Middle East specialists said Sunday that if Mr. Mitchell was named to
the job, he would be seen by both sides as a tougher but more balanced
negotiator than recent envoys, which could make some Israelis nervous.
Mr. Mitchell has Lebanese as well as Irish roots: his father, Joseph
Kilroy, was an orphan adopted by a Lebanese family whose Arabic name
had been anglicized to Mitchell, and Mr. Mitchell was raised a Maronite
Catholic by his Lebanese mother.
Two points. When does the Times perform such ethnic geography on a potential appointment? Did it do so with the well-traveled Martin Indyk or the mixed-parented Dennis Ross? It is doing so not for the benefit of the alleged "Israelis" who might get nervous, but for American Jews, who might get nervous. Since when do we powerful Americans care how many brutalized citizens of a Jewish state get nervous about our appointments? Where do international waters begin? Though Bumiller offers this:
The appointment of Mr. Mitchell would be a strong suggestion “that
Obama is going to free himself of the exclusive relationship that we’ve
had with the Israelis,” said Aaron David Miller, a public policy
analyst at the Woodrow Wilson International Center.
Why is that balance needed? Note that the Mitchell Report of 2001 is mentioned–another time the Israelis flouted, shamed, ignored American directive. (Phil Weiss)
