but given Ross's reputation as a wise man on all things peace process related,

the jokes just write themselves today.

The analogy here would be that given Kevorkian's reputation as a wise man on all things hospice related, we really ought to be hearing more from him on hospice funding.

Ross was, is, and will always be, an AIPAC apparatchik. Having tried (and failed) to ram Barack's "you'll take the crumbs we give you, and you'll like it" down Arafat's throat he gets nothing but kudos from both the disinterested hacks of the mainstream media and hosannas from the very interested "Minions of Marty" over at Stormfront magazine.

I have mixed feelings about Ross. His view of Arafat as the bogeyman of Ross's own failure to get a peace agreement appears very one-sided and conveniently self-justifying to me. But he's a very smart man with much experience.

His piece that Karon criticizes is oddly written. Ross doesn't actually say we shouldn't talk with Hamas, though he appears to take that for granted. He instead attributes some anti-Hamas views to Fatah and other Palestinians, calls them "strong words," and then asks whether Fatah can compete with Hamas. The bulk of the piece is a challenge to Fatah, and to us to support Fatah. Karon, in response, doesn't do much to make Hamas look good (he points out how they're not as bad as some say), but he mainly says we need to acknowledge that Hamas won the elections, which Ross seems unwilling to do. That's surely a good point.

Ross is part of the establishment, and does not have complete freedom to express his true views, or only expresses those views that would be useful, or etc.

I may be the only one left to defend the Iraq hawks like Pollack and Beinart on these grounds. The war was gonna happen, and opposing Bush would have permanently marginalized certain opponents.

Diplomats serve politicians.

The analogy here would be that given Kevorkian's reputation as a wise man on all things hospice related, we really ought to be hearing more from him on hospice funding.

But in fact, I do think Dr. Kevorkian would be a great person to address end of life care issues, so maybe your analogy lacks a certain panache.

I have no comment to make for against Ross, but I do think that Karon's statement that Hamas's "leaders keep stressing the fact that they want to talk" is not accurate. The two op-ed columns he links to do not express any desire to negotiate with the US. And I am unaware of any statement in any context that Hamas is willing to engage in negotiations with the US or with Israel without preconditions.

Only yesterday, Hamas leader Yehiya Moussa strongly rejected the idea of an international conference under the auspices of the UN. He is quoted in an AP story as calling the proposal part of a American "crusade" against Palestinians and calling the leaders of the Arab states who might support the idea "the puppet dictators" of the United States. Not the sort of rhetoric you'd expect from someone eager to talk to the US.

The Hamas position has been consistent for several years: Israel must withdraw from all territories conquered in '67, including Jerusalem, and release all Palestinian prisoners. The Palestinians will then agree to a ten-year truce - a hudna, a period of no war, no peace - during which they will establish their state. Hamas during that time will work to establish an Islamic state under Sha'aria law on the territories that Israel has evacuated. During the truce period, the Palestinian state will not recognize Israel and to the contrary will maintain that the territory of Israel proper is rightfully Palestinian. After the ten year period, the two sides will see whether they want to negotiate a permanent peace or whether they would prefer war.

For Hamas, this proposal is understood to be a realistic compromise. It reflects the understanding among the realists within the organization that in the face of overwhelming military might, the destruction of Israel by means of force is not possible in the short term. This is as far as Hamas can go and remain a unified organization. So far as I know, Hamas has never given any sign that they are willing to negotiate off this program. Karon does not cite any statement or indication to the contrary.

To my mind, the Hamas program is not at all surprising for a revolutionary nationalist movement. It is not so very different from the Irish nationalist program before the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1922. Just as there were Irish nationalists who refused to accept the 1922 compromise - and later bacame the IRA - it is not cause for surprise that there are Palestinians, in the form of Hamas, who will not accept the concept of compromise with the Israelis.

Not that it matters, but I personally would have no objection to efforts to negotiate with Hamas, if (1) someone could explain to me what the negotations would be about, and (2) such negotiations would not fatally weaken Fatah and Abbas.

But I think it is not accurate to say that Hamas is eager to negotiate but that it is being shut out by the US and Israel. Perhaps someone here can correct me with a factual citation or two (as opposed to the usual ad hominem attacks on one's intelligence, honesty, sexual proclivities, and the like that one gets when one writes anything that could remotely be considered to be favorable to Israel).

By coincidence, Ross was on the Charlie Rose show last night. It was a breathtakingly mendacious performance.

Tony Karon is a one-state-solution radical whose view of how to resolve the conflict is a lot closer to Hamas than Ross's views are to anyone who's still in the Likud. I don't entirely agree with Ross's advice either on what should be done now, but anyone who's tooting Karon's horn should be fully aware of what he's advocating.

You know Karon is just spewing foam-flecked drivel as soon as he calls Ross "AIPAC man" and a "Likudnik." I doubt Ross has any connection to AIPAC beyond appearing at some of their events. Certainly, no connection is noted on his biography at WINEP.

But it truly is bizarre to call him a Likudnik. You see, Dennis Ross is a peace negotiator. Actual Likudniks have generally opposed peace negotiations. So they don't like Ross (or Oslo or Camp David or Taba). Just to be clear, I'm using the term "Likudnik" to refer to supporters of the Israeli political party, rather than as a generic term of abuse. If you're interested in what Likudniks actually think of Ross, here's a link.

Ross was also a head of the Libby legal defense fund.

But it truly is bizarre to call him a Likudnik. You see, Dennis Ross is a peace negotiator. Actual Likudniks have generally opposed peace negotiations. So they don't like Ross (or Oslo or Camp David or Taba)

But, from the above quote, Karon recognizes this:

Dennis Ross, the AIPAC man who served the first Bush Adminsitration and then Clinton as a Middle East mediator, before returning to the AIPAC fold

Karon's not saying that Ross is a Likudnik because he worked in the peace proces, but rather because Ross' current descriptions of and prescriptions for Palestine fit snugly within the Likudnik narrative.

CMD's SourceWatch links him to AIPAC as a director, but I can't find any confirmation of that history elsewhere.

As I said, Tony Karon's views on the conflict are closer to Hamas' views than Ross's are to the Likud. Karon wants a one-state solution, where there's no Jewish state anymore, just like Hamas wants. Ross wants there to be negotiations, albeit not with Hamas, while Likudniks don't want negotiations with anyone. I.e., Karon is more of a "Hamasnik" than Ross is a Likudnik. So if you want to engage in name-calling as a substitute for argument, at least get the facts straight.

AIPAC Dennis Ross Book Signing
Sponsor: AIPAC
When: 08/09/2007 at 7:30am

AIPAC Breakfast with Dennis Ross as part of his national book tour for his new book, "Statescape: How to Restore America’s Standing in the World." This event is reserved for AIPAC Members who contribute $3600 and above.

Discussion in Congress quickly widened beyond Israel to include a broader policy of confrontation toward the entire Middle East. Congressmen sent a flurry of "dear colleague" letters to one another, hoping to pressure the Administration into tightening sanctions on Syria and Iran, Hezbollah's two main state sponsors. Former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross addressed a packed AIPAC-sponsored luncheon on the Hill, where, according to one aide present, Ross told the room: "This is all about Syria and Iran...we shouldn't be condemning Israel now." Said Representative Robert Andrews, a Democrat from New Jersey and co-chair of the Iran Working Group, which this week hosted an official from the Israeli embassy: "I concur completely with that approach."

Steve Clemons on Ross' work for the Libby Defense Fund:

But Ross can't be considered as just a Libby personal pal in this.

He works and operates at the nexus of America's relations in the Middle East -- and those relations in Israel, Iran, with the Palestinians are fragile on all fronts and at all levels now.

His involvement with Libby's funding needs won't come off to anyone as just personal. He's there for big time institutional reasons -- representing Libby's interests to another nation, and representing that nation's interests to those in Libby's circles -- particularly Dick Cheney.

More on this soon, but this just makes more clear why Washington's Middle East Peace Business cartel needs to be broken.

Dennis Ross
Counselor and Ziegler Distinguished Fellow
WINEP

Like I said, Ross has appeared at some AIPAC events, but I doubt he has any other connection. He's not listed as a director or any kind of officer on AIPAC's most recent filing with the IRS.

The "Likudnik narrative" is that peace talks with the Palestinians or any concessions are a mistake that do nothing other than make Israel look weak. I fail to see how Ross's views fit into this narrative.

someone who is unaware of the financial, intellectual, and political connections between WINEP and AIPAC is either extremely obtuse or willfully ignorant.

"I doubt Ross has any connection to AIPAC beyond appearing at some of their events. Certainly, no connection is noted on his biography at WINEP."

WINEP is an offshoot of AIPAC, founded in the 1980's by Martin Indyk, former researd director of AIPAC.

http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=3467

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Washington_Institute_for_Near_East_Policy

http://www.merip.org/mero/mero040603.html

More to the point, is anyone so credulous as to believe that AIPAC is a disinterested promoter of opinions at variance with its own agenda?

Indeed I am unaware of any "financial connections" between WINEP and AIPAC. Pray enlighten me.

I'm especially interested if you can find some connections more recent than 1985 or some evidence not based on the Larouchite sources cited by zed, but I'll take what you can give me.

I'm especially interested if you can find some connections more recent than 1985 or some evidence not based on the Larouchite sources cited by zed, but I'll take what you can give me.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how being a recipient of AIPAC promotional largesse excludes Ross from being described as an "AIPAC man".

Oh thats rich.

The sources I cite are from Juan Cole, a noted Middle Eastern expert and professor at the Unversity of Michigan, Joel Beinin, likewise a noted expert and professor at Stanford, and the Center for Media and Democracy (Sourcewatch),whose director has publicly (and rightly) called Larouche a "lunatic fringe conspiracy theorist".

You've pulled some non-existent connection between LaRouche and Juan Cole, Joel Beinin, and Sourcewatch fresh out of your ass, but, despite the evidence, you can't see any link between AIPAC and WINEP. Please don't pretend to be a skeptical seeker of truth. You're just too comical to pull it off.

The Cole link above says Ross is a moderate. Esp. given that Cole tends to be paranoid on the subject of Israel, the link makes the opposite of zed's point.

zed,

The Cole article relies heavily on Karen Kwiatkowski, http://hnn.us/articles/7582.html" rel="nofollow">who is a Larouchite, and on Jim Lobe, who's also a loon.

By the way, I notice that Martin Indyk, the onetime AIPAC researcher and WINEP head, is now the Direcor of the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. Does this make Brookings part of AIPAC too?

The Cole article relies heavily on Karen Kwiatkowski, who is a Larouchite, and on Jim Lobe, who's also a loon.

Really? Let's take a look at what the article you linked to actually says.

Being so closely identified with the Larouche organization bothered Kwiatkowski. "I'm not really clear about what Larouche stands for. I only found about Larouche after I was called a Larouchi. I just know I don't agree or understand anything he advocates. That [Steinberg] memo has been no end of heartache because the original memo was not corrected and because there were things not true, or he interpreted them in a way I did not intend."

It appears there are more grounds to call Ross an "AIPAC man" than there are for calling Kwiatkowski a "Larouchite".

The article I linked to also says that

"In September 2003, Steinberg met for three hours with Kwiatkowski at her farm, where she aired her views on Jewish Zionist neocons, NESA and its now-disbanded Office of Special Plans, responsible for much of America's Iraq war planning."

Steinberg is the editor of Executive Intelligence Review, published by Lyndon Larouche. Kwiatkowski now denies being a Larouche supporter even though she first came to prominence due to Larouchite promotion.

So a single instance of being interviewed by a Larouche publication is enough for you to label Kwiatkowski a Larouchite but you clutch your pearls at the thought that someone would describe Ross as an "AIPAC man" based on a continuous pattern of promotion and collaboration.

Glad we cleared that up.

... someone would describe Ross as an "AIPAC man" based on his own source saying the opposite and Ross's policy views being plainly at odds with AIPAC's positions - i.e., engage in name-calling as a substitute for argument.

Why I'm responding to someone who's uninformed enough to ignore Haggai is beyond me. Life's too short.

Why I'm responding to someone who's uninformed enough to ignore Haggai is beyond me. Life's too short.

I'm not certain what significance you attach to Haggai's post. It's certainly worth noting what Karon's views are regarding the Palestinian/Israeli conflict but I don't see how that is pertinent when addressing those who complain of Ross' views being similarly placed in context.

What, exactly, do you think Karon's views have to do with the question of whether or not his characterization of Ross is apt?

Now as to this:

someone would describe Ross as an "AIPAC man" based on his own source saying the opposite and Ross's policy views being plainly at odds with AIPAC's positions - i.e., engage in name-calling as a substitute for argument.

Frankly, I'm surprised at your spin Rilkefan. Let's look at the relevant passage, shall we?

In the 1980s, AIPAC set up the Washington Institute for Near East Policy as a pro-Israeli alternative to the Brookings Institution, which it perceived to be insufficiently supportive of Israel. WINEP has largely followed AIPAC into pro-Likud positions, even though its director, Dennis Ross, is more moderate. He is a figurehead, however, serving to disguise the far right character of most of the position papers produced by long-term WINEP staff and by extremist visitors and "associates" (Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer are among the latter).

WINEP, being a wing of AIPAC, is enormously influential in Washington. State Department and military personnel are actually detailed there to "learn" about "the Middle East"! They would get a far more balanced "education" about the region in any Israeli university, since most Israeli academics are professionals, whereas WINEP is a "think tank" that hires by ideology.

So, in point of fact, Cole doesn't say that Ross is a "moderate", merely that he is "more" moderate in comparison to his pro-Likud colleagues, for whom he serves as a "figurehead". Moreover, Cole explicitly labels WINEP as being a "wing of AIPAC" which he also identifies as being pro-Likud.

That you would read this as somehow invalidating Karon's characterization of Ross is breathtaking.

Jeez - Cole writes "largely", "more moderate", "figurehead", and "disguise", which makes your position silly (or his prose nonsensical), esp. since he's well-known to foam at the mouth on these issues. That after Haggai made your position silly by noting Ross has long pushed policy stands that AIPAC strongly disapproves of. I admit that Ross committed the horrible sin of pointing out the fact that Arafat screwed up royally in flatly rejecting the Clinton parameters, one of a number of recent body-blows to the anti-Israel cause - but that doesn't make him an AIPAC guy in a non-paranoid universe. And I admit that Ross advocates for a fair, equitable solution to the conflict - you can't sensibly call him an AIPAC guy even if you oppose that goal.

I admit that Ross committed the horrible sin of pointing out the fact that Arafat screwed up royally in flatly rejecting the Clinton parameters, one of a number of recent body-blows to the anti-Israel cause - but that doesn't make him an AIPAC guy in a non-paranoid universe.

I agree with your conclusion, but Ross did more than point out that Arafat made a big mistake, something Arafat himself is reported to have acknowledged. Ross went further and blamed Arafat pretty much completely for the failure of the talks, and explained that in terms of Arafat's supposed personal failings that made it all impossible, ignoring to a great extent the ways in which Barack and later Sharon (especially) also contributed to the collapse of the peace process. It was a very one-sided and self-serving account.

First off Rikefan, I see no indication that you have the slightest clue as to what my position is.

Regardless of your opinion of Cole, he clearly identifies Ross as fronting for an organization he considers an extension of AIPAC. He further identifies both that organization and AIPAC as pro-Likud. Since Ross is on the payroll of said organization, it would follow that he is being paid to front for AIPAC's pro-Likud agenda, however "more moderate" his personal views may be. Contra your spin, this discription is entirely consistent with Karon's characterization.

That after Haggai made your position silly by noting Ross has long pushed policy stands that AIPAC strongly disapproves of

Except, of course, he didn't. Haggai contrasted Ross's views with those of Likud, not AIPAC. Granted, that calls the validity of Karon's Likudnik remark into question, however, if Cole's discription of Ross's role is accurate, it would be expected that he would, at points, offer dissenting views. Once again, I see no evidence that you have any inkling of what my position is.

So to recap. You misrepresented what Cole wrote. You misrepresented what Haggai wrote. When confronted, you bang on the table and beat your chest.

The claim that Winep is a wing of AIPAC is untrue, by the way.

The claim that Winep is a wing of AIPAC is untrue, by the way.

Perhaps so but it's clear that Cole believes it to be true.

"First off Rikefan, I see no indication that you have the slightest clue as to what my position is."

I don't have the slightest interest what your position is. I just care about the English language, and when Cole says Ross is a "figurehead" who "disguises" an organization which he is "more moderate" than and which has "largely" followed a second organization, it's an abuse of the language to claim the second organization's views are representative of Ross's. That or it's simple stupidity, and I don't recall you seeming stupid. Though if you want to push the distinction between AIPAC and Likud in the context of your argument I'll revise my opinion.

don't have the slightest interest what your position is.

Then why did you bring it up?

I just care about the English language, and when Cole says Ross is a "figurehead" who "disguises" an organization which he is "more moderate" than and which has "largely" followed a second organization, it's an abuse of the language to claim the second organization's views are representative of Ross's.

For someone who "cares about the English language" you have a strange way of showing it. For example, Cole doesn't just say that WINEP "largely follows" AIPAC, he states flatly that WINEP is a "wing" of AIPAC. Harvesting decontextualized quotes that seem to support your opinion, while ignoring other qualifying statements that do not, hardly shows a care or respect for language.

It's quite clear that Cole is, in polite, round about fashion, accusing Ross of being an AIPAC stooge. That is the gist of his discription. Whether or not that discription is accurate or an abuse of English are worthwhile points but ones purely secondary to his intended meaning. You asserted that this discription contradicts Karon's characterization. It does not.

That or it's simple stupidity, and I don't recall you seeming stupid. Though if you want to push the distinction between AIPAC and Likud in the context of your argument I'll revise my opinion.

Feel free to call me "stupid" anytime you like, if that's what your version of "care" for the English language requires. However, the distinction you refer to isn't mine but Haggai's. Since you evidently set great store by Haggai's comments, one has to wonder why you wouldn't respect his words.