Published earlier this week TAPPED post "A NEW APPROACH TO ISRAEL?" saw hope in the possible appointment of George Mitchell (who helped solve the Northern Ireland problem in the 90s) as Middle East envoy. (Mr. Mitchell's appointment was announced today, January 22, 2009).
It's a bit regrettable that poster Tim Fernholtz, chose a Ethan Bronner's NYT_IHT (IHT address in case you're not registered at the NYT) analysis of the reasons and the results of the war on Gaza. The piece sounds like Mr. Bronner simply trotted down to the Israeli "information" office. He ends up equating the horrific actions of Israel on the people of the enclave with "crazy" low prices being offered by a shopkeeper. If you know anything about advertising, you can recognize that gimmick. It's like using a hot blond to push cigarettes. If you like hot blonds, you'll like our coffin nails!
I'm not saying the Times' Jerusalem bureau chief is biased, necessarily.
Maybe he just lazily took what was offered up by the Israeli government.
But, beyond the sloppy analysis to which the piece was linked (and who knows what else was available at the time) the Tapped piece is dead on. (And on January 22, 2009 Mitchell was appointed to the position.
George Mitchell who has Lebanese roots, as well as Irish could help bring about change.
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....
The difference between being Israel's lawyer and an honest broker seems to be the critical distinction faced by the new administration. Moving from the former to the latter does not mean giving up U.S. support for Israel's existance; it means creating a mechanism where the state's survival is a viable proposition.
Read rest at source (top link above).