Just caught Andrea Mitchell on "Meet the Press." She's good. I don't hold her Jewishness against her. Because she isn't a fount of molten Zionism. (Unlike Jeffrey Goldberg, who was talking all about Hamas and holy war as usual, with conviction, as if the God-types are only on one side). And what Mitchell said, in the brief moment I heard her before peeling a banana and returning to the galley oar, is: Washington is wondering what the heck Israel is up to? What's its "endgame"? And of course, by implication, Washington lacks the political power to do anything about it.
The importance of Mitchell's comment was this: The Establishment doesn't know how to deal with Gaza and hint-hint, Israel's insane. The American Establishment doesn't want to repeat its mistakes of Iraq and Lebanon. It knows that Bush is wrong to support Israel without question, for he was the decider of the Iraq disaster. It knows that Obama brings a new era, and that the world is against Israel's slaughter. But the Establishment is afraid to say anything critical. For the usual reasons.
Further evidence. A friend writes, "The NYT had nothing on the Gaza operation on its editorial or op-ed
pages today. That means in the eight days since the war began on
December 27, they have had one editorial (Dec. 30) and two op-eds Dec
30 and 31) — both by Israelis!!! Nothing else. This is amazing. The NYT readership is heavily Jewish and cares greatly about Israel. What is going on here"
Excellent questions. And the answer is, in a word: J Street has blown the bridge. There is now a growing chasm between Realist Jewish opinion (Dan Fleshler) and Liberal Hawk/Neocon opinion (Goldberg). Andrea Mitchell sees where this one is going and is hinting. Inside the Times editorial board there is surely deep division. They can't run more red-meat Invasion op-eds. And they can't run MJ Rosenberg or Steve Walt either. And the result: Paralysis.
