Will George Mitchell Change U.S.-Israel Ties?
And can the new peace envoy's "evenhanded" approach work in a conflict where one side desires the destruction of the other?
He should, since he was called upon by Bill Clinton to head a fact-finding committee to investigate the cause of the al-Aksa intifada and to explore ways to prevent violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Does this report (available here) give us any insights into his views?
The main points can be summarized:
The report described each side’s reasons for blaming the other for the outbreak of violence, and listed a series of steps the Israelis and Palestinians should take to resume negotiations. These included: 1) a 100 percent effort to stop the violence; 2) the immediate resumption of security cooperation; 3) the exchange of confidence-building measures; and 4) the speedy return to serious negotiations.
The Mitchell Report called for a cease-fire before negotiations; for the PA to condemn incitement and denounce terrorism and arrest terrorists, and for it to prevent gunmen from using Palestinian-populated areas to fire upon Israeli-populated areas and Israeli military positions. It also did not blame Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount for precipitating the violence. However, the report called for a freeze on all settlement activity including “natural growth” as a confidence-building measure. (Israel has always held that the future of the settlements was a “final status” issue to be negotiated by the two sides.)
The issue of settlements has long been a contentious one, not just between Israelis and Palestinians but also between various Israeli and American governments and, indeed, among Israelis themselves. Not all settlers are religious. Many have been induced to move there because of their affordability, and some Israelis view them as a security cordon necessary to ensure the safety of the state. Jerusalem, the most sacred city of the Jews, was very vulnerable to being cut off from the rest of the nation — as was done in the 1948 war. A collection of settlements around Jerusalem reduces the risk of its citizens being cut off and killed.
When the report was issued, many Israelis objected to the harsh view on settlements (especially the call to end their “natural growth”). On the other hand, the report did not “give” the Palestinians what many of them have long desired: the imposition of an international force in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These types of international forces have proven to be forceless when it comes to preventing terrorism but are effective in restraining Israel (far more concerned with its image than terrorists) from taking the steps it needs to in order to protect its people. Some supporters of Israel took exception to what they viewed as the neutrality of the report between the perpetrators of terrorism and those trying to defend themselves.
Such evenhandedness may gain him some points in the Arab world (as might his Lebanese heritage) but again, Marty Peretz, has a point when he writes that he can’t grasp how one can be evenhanded between political gangsters like Hamas and a democratic nation state like Israel. After the Mitchell report was released, some in Jerusalem felt Mitchell was trying to be too balanced. Mitchell recently pointed out that there were four other members of the commission whose views were also reflected in the report.
Morton Klein, head of the right-wing Zionist Organization of America, shares these qualms:
“In the meetings I’ve participated in with George Mitchell, he made it clear he sympathized with the Palestinian position over the Israeli position, and blamed Israel more than the Palestinians for the lack of progress toward peace,” said Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America. “We will be expressing our strong concerns that this appointment would be a mistake. It would send an additional message that Obama is going to pressure Israel more than the Palestinians.”
Nevertheless, his appointment is being welcomed by left-of-center groups such as the Israel Policy Forum and by people such as M.J. Rosenberg, a frequent critic of Israeli and American policy in the Middle East.
The issue of settlements is very likely to arise early in the Obama administration. He has expressed concern about them in the past and Mitchell seems to concur with his view. The problem may be exacerbated if Israel’s Likud party wins the upcoming February election — as recent polls indicate. Likud has historically drawn a good deal of support from settlers in the West Bank and the party sees such settlements as necessary for Israel’s security. The handwriting may already be on the wall: Barack Obama’s views towards the Likud party are not warm ones. Questions are being raised regarding the prospects of President Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu (Likud’s leader and likely future prime minister of Israel) working well together. They have successfully worked together on the issue of sanctions on Iran, but that is just one salient and non-controversial issue.
Steve Rosen, a very astute observer of both Capitol Hill and the Middle East, had some further thoughts about Mitchell:
If in fact Mitchell is appointed, it will be taken in the region as a message that Obama intends to pursue a policy less closely coordinated with Israel, and less fully under the control of the Secretary of State. Mitchell is of partly Lebanese descent, and was brought up as a Maronite Catholic. To many, he is a prominent symbol of “evenhandedness,” but he is not regarded as hostile to Israel. As a Senator, he had many supporters in the pro-Israel community, and he generally favored legislation important to the U.S.-Israel relationship. He has many friends among Israel’s leaders, and in the American pro-Israel community.
All true.
But Mitchell, as a former majority leader, also has many friends in the Senate — especially one dominated by Democrats. Will his views on settlements and the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians hold sway within the Senate? Will the Senate become less supportive of Israel if one of its most esteemed former members conveys views that might lead them to be?
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Ed Lasky is news editor of the American Thinker.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
21 Comments
1. RE:It’s naive to think that another diplomat will change much of anything beyond further perpetuating the violence and misery.
Jan 23, 2009 - 5:28 am 2. David Thomson:President Barack Obama’s selection of George Mitchell is most troubling. It indicates that his administration fails to comprehend the radical Palestinians existential hatred for the Jews. In back of Mitchell’s mind, he probably also believes they are dark skinned victims of white Israeli oppression. A common belief among “elites” who attended our so-called better universities is that ultimately everyone means well. We merely have a failure to communicate if troubles within a relationship persist. Employing advanced Negotiations 101 tactics should therefore be sufficient to resolve the lingering issues. At the end of the day, Obama’s newly chosen Middle East envoy’s naiveté will most assuredly only make matters worse. Meaning well is not enough. One’s head must also be firmly placed on their shoulders. If that is not the case—it will inevitably result in the murders of countless innocents.
Jan 23, 2009 - 6:15 am 3. RJ:Mitchell carries with him a bag full of words and a great passive aggressive personality. He hopes that those who he wishes to control don’t have a counter plan in place for his efforts like straight talking and real guns with real bullets.
His legacy, Tom Dascle, plans to do the same work on American healthcare. Let’s hope he might have a serious medical emergency prior to doing anything as damaging as he desires.
Both of these idiots, these narcissists, should leave the stage…sooner, rather than later!
Jan 23, 2009 - 6:32 am 4. Stephen Rittenberg:Mitchell is being hailed as fair and even handed. Yet he authored a massive report on steroids in baseball that omitted the names of any players on, guess which team, the one that employed George Mitchell, the Boston Red Sox. The report also named some players, but contained no mention of whether team management was complicit in welcoming more home runs to draw more fans. No doubt he’ll author an ‘impartial’ report that blames Israel and the ’settlers’.
Jan 23, 2009 - 7:16 am 5. Promoguy:The comparison in his press conference between Ireland and England with the situation between the Palis and Israel show just how much this person has less then any grasp on the situation. I hope that Israel realizes that when push comes to shove, they shove and know they will have to save themselves. I listened and just couldn’t believe the words that came out of the idiots mouth.
Jan 23, 2009 - 7:53 am 6. Sue:I have absolutely no confidence in Mitchell particularly, or anyone who is appointed in this time to deal with a situation that is not only intractable, insurmountable but is completely insuperable. We need to deal with the fact that this situation can not….NOT, be solved in anyway until both sides wish peace…not a possibility!!
Jan 23, 2009 - 8:03 am 7. progressoverpeace:Mitchell is a fool who will carry out the idiot messiah’s desire to kill Israel, in order to curry favor with the arabs – who will, once Israel is gone, set out to concentrating on nothing else but taking over Europe and attacking America. Israel’s only hope is to distance itself from the US. Of course, this would put Israel into a more precarious position with respect to military readiness and Israel’s ability to carry out a sustained battle, so Israel will also have to react ruthlessly and harshly to arab provocations. In the end, that will be best for everyone – well, it will be best for the civilzed world.
Jan 23, 2009 - 10:31 am 8. Ex-canuck in USA:American Jews who voted Democratic last autumn are getting paid back in the currency that their naivete deserves.
Jan 23, 2009 - 11:29 am 9. MIke Reynolds:Mitchell is partly of Arab origin; hopefully that won’t make him less fair.
Jan 23, 2009 - 4:42 pm 10. lgkick:The Israel supporters must pray that Mitchell is successful in bringing peace to the ME because the latest mass killing of innocent civilians did not defeat the will of the Palestinians. Mitchell is your last chance. Come to your senses and support him. This is not 80’s anymore. Time has changed and so must your dreams.
Jan 23, 2009 - 6:48 pm 11. SAF:Mitchell can only get the Israelis to compromise on their security. Hamas has no other goal than to push Israel into the sea. They won’t compromise on anything. Why should they? The world keeps feeding them money and hope. And watching Obama in action this week Hamas knows he will stay the hand of Israel when missile attacks resume shortly.
Jan 23, 2009 - 9:41 pm 12. SAF:Lets consider: Mitchell is a smart man. He must realize the Palestinian position is cast in concrete. We know he has a healthy ego and didn’t take this job if he knew it was a sure looser. Why bother? He’s a wealthy man doesn’t need the work. So he has either has an angle or it is complete hubris on his part that he can do something.
Perhaps his true mission is to force Israel into a corner that they must buy their armaments from us instead of getting military grants. We certainly could use the dough.
He certainly need not worry about the Jewish vote in the states as they will vote democratic even if Obama where to bomb Tel Aviv.
The other possibility is that the wheels have been put in motion to actual stop weapons from flowing into Gaza. So if the US and other countries live up to their commitments to keep Gaza a missile free zone the Israelis might actual start trade with Gaza.
Keeping the place from erupting into war is as simple as keeping Hamas from firing missiles into Israel proper. Perhaps Mitchell enforces this and forces trade as well.
What ever bias he has he is a smart dude. We’ll know soon enough.
Jan 23, 2009 - 10:14 pm 13. fred lapides:Why not stop bad mouthing the guyh till such time as he sp[ends some time trying to accomplish something? After all, What had Rice/Bush done over the past years? In fact, things are already beginning to change:
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5870
Iran got its first slap in the face under Obama!
as for the Palestinians: The Economist (this week) as well as the Palestinian reporter placed inside Gaza both report that many in Gaza blame Hamas for the troubles there but are being silenced by Hamas…Hamas at this point needs to control Gaza and hopes to win over West Bank too so they may well change policy.
In sum: slow down in your attempt to badmouth the new leadership in this nation, a chance wrought after all because the vast majority of Americans no longer would support what the GOP has done over the recent years.
Jan 24, 2009 - 5:04 am 14. don:How do you negotiate with a group who’s core philosophy involves the mass murder/extermination of it’s opponents? I’m sure “even handedness” would have worked perfectly well with the Nazis (the well from which the radicalized Salafist heresy draws it’s inspiration). After all look how well Chamberlain’s actions worked. The really funny comment came from lgkick . . . “mass killing of innocent civilians” . . . For Hamas there are no “Innocent” civilians, firing unguided missiles in a cardinal direction is not a tactic, it is a criminal act and betrays the value Hamas places on civilians in general and Israeli citizens in particular. The only “negotiations” Hamas will honestly adhere to are those flowing from the barrel of Israeli Galils. So I ask you, how do you “negotiate” with someone with good faith intent when your opponent is strictly seeking an opportunity to kill you and exterminate your people?
All I can think about lgkick’s comments is this is the result of a diet composed of the politically compromised pap most of the media distribute as news.
Jan 24, 2009 - 8:24 am 15. Oscar the Grump:There is a real danger in isolating Israel.
A really desperate Israel could be a really dangerous Israel. It won’t let itself cease to exist. Its people have faced overwhelming odds before and always come out on top. They will do all that is necessary to survive.
What else would isolating Israel do? Cutting Israel off of US arms would also eliminate US influence. Its potential effect would be as follows. On a short term, Israel would seek arms elsewhere taking with it its vast technical knowledge. It would benefit a newly reemerging Russia and growing China. Within five years Israel would be totally self sufficient in arms production. Be assured Israel could produce a world class stealth fighter within two years.
Another major point to consider is that Israel is the major counterbalancing force in the Middle East. As Iran grows in power and influence, Israel is the only military force that could possibly stop them. Do we as a nation want to give up our trump card in that game.
Jan 24, 2009 - 6:37 pm 16. David P:Mitchell will be in for an awakening if he assumes he can pick up where Clinton left off in 2000. February elections will reflect a decisively hawkish position among Israeli’s whose memories are fresh from the bloodshed caused by previous peace concessions.
Jan 25, 2009 - 1:38 am 17. Larry D. Crumbley:Hello,
This is a “FUNNY” article, and here is why. Sec. of State Hillary Clinton if that is the name she is going with while she is on the job, well then she thinks that she is going to have any better luck, or whatever because she is Hillary, and her husband was Bill Clinton, and she deserves the job because she is more capable than Barry O’, and the list goes on, and on, and on, if you know what I mean. Wait this just in Sec. of State admits to all that she has a hidden agenda, and that is that she wants real bad for Barry O’ to screw up so bad that she can take over at mid-stream, and lead the country to a bright, sun-shiny day. Hip-Hip, Hooray for Hillary. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN LET ME BE VERY CLEAR THAT NO MATTER WHAT BARRY O’ SAYS OR HIS PERSONAL LITTLE LAP-DOG HILLARY, IT HAS BEEN TRIED SEVERAL TIMES, AND NO MATTER WHO SHE MAKES SPECIAL ENVOYS TO WHATEVER AREA OF THE WORLD THERE WILL NEVER BE NO PEACE IN THE Middle-East BEFORE THE TIME OF THE SECOND COMING OF JESUS CHRIST, AND EVERY BELIEVER-(CHRISTIAN)-KNOWS THIS AND WE ARE FULLY AWARE OF THE TIME FRAME FOR ALL OF TO HAPPEN. SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR AMERICA, AND IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT ALL OF THIS MEANS THAT WE WILL BE BACK TO THE POLICES OF HER HUSBANDS ADMINISTRATION. WHICH WAS ONE OF FAILURE TO COME TO GRIPS WITH THE REALITY THAT ISRAEL WAS BEING SCREWED BY HIS ADMIN., AND THEY WERE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE. SO SUMMARIZING THIS–SEC. OF STATE CLINTON’S IDEA OF “SMART-POWER” IS NOTHING MORE THAN WORDS FROM A WOMEN THAT IS NO MORE QUALIFIED FOR THE JOB THAT SHE WAS GIVEN THAN THE JOB THAT HER NEW BOSS WAS FOR THE JOB THAT HE, AND HIS CRONIES, AND ALL THE HENCHMEN IN THE SEN., AND THE HOUSE WERE FOR THE JOB THAT THEY GOT FROM ALL THE “IDIOTS” that voted for them this past election-cycle. Now smart=power that Madam Sec. You are about to fail, and you know it. May God have Mercy on us as a nation. For all of you that will follow you are about to get a huge lesson on what it takes to be a leader.
Thank you,
Jan 25, 2009 - 4:29 am 18. Jillian:Larry D. Crumbley
bearone7777@yahoo.com
If one side in Ireland was dedicated to the extermination of the other like the Palestinians are, Mitchell wouldn’t have succeeded there either
Jan 26, 2009 - 12:18 pm 19. David:A very big difference between Northern Ireland and the Middle East was that the IRA realized that they were losing and decided to cut a deal which didn’t give them any of their core objectives. The Palestinians have not got to that stage yet.
Jan 26, 2009 - 4:09 pm 20. Rajan:Barack Obama has exhibited his absolute incompetence and lack of perception in his foreign policy initiatives by appointing his own Middle East envoy, George Mitchell – an act which promptly undermines the status of Tony Blair who is already officiating as the Middle East mediator on behalf of the world community. What will be the role of Blair now? Is he expected to trail behind Mitchell holding his coat tails? It is such unilateral actions without consultations with other important nations or the UN taken by George W Bush which Obama himself was constantly railing against in his campaign speeches.
Just because George Mitchell was successful (at least to the extent of halting temporarily the IRA terrorist outrages) in his role as the mediator in the Northern Ireland problem, there is no guarantee that he will make any similar headway in solving the Middle East crisis too. The obvious reason is that the similarity between the two issues stops with the involvement of ruthless militant groups in both of them in battling with a governmental authority. The Provisional IRA’s declared goal was to separate the Northern Ireland province from the British monarchy and merge it with the Irish Republic. But, the Irish government itself, over a period of time, got tired and sick of the IRA’s atrocities ostensibly on its behalf, renounced its own claim to the Northern Ireland and also totally disowned the terrorist outfit. Hence, the IRA was left as an orphan without any cause to fight for. It was, therefore, question of time before the IRA, hunted down as it was by both the British and the Irish governments, would eagerly opt for the terrorist analogue of Chapter 11 protection. George Mitchell joined the fray as a mediator at the most opportune moment when all the parties involved were hungering for a pause in hostilities and was, therefore, able to gobble up all the credit. It seems to have been forgotten that it was Tony Blair’s key role as the British Prime Minister at that time which greatly facilitated George Mitchell’s mediation effort.
But, with the Palestinian problem, the situation is entirely different. To compare the Palestinian militants like the Hamas with the Provisional IRA is like comparing the cobra and the rattlesnake (not the usual comparing of oranges and apples!). The Palestinian militant is like the cobra and the Provisional IRA is like the rattlesnake. There are people in countries like India who worship the cobra as an incarnation of god. Similarly, the Palestinian guerrillas draw full support, both moral as well as material, not only from all Arab nations but also from other Muslim countries. On the other hand, the rattlesnake, as far as I know, has no devotees anywhereon the planet. Similarly, the IRA is now totally friendless. Even the maverick elements among the pub-crawling Irish community in New York, who once supported them financially, seem to have forsaken them now.
When viewed against the above background, George Mitchell is not likely to score any home runs with the Palestinian problem any time soon. It is a thoughtless, undiplomatic and knee-jerk step for Barack Obama to have appointed him as a counterfoil to Tony Blair who was entrusted with the same task only a year ago by the Middle East Diplomatic Quartet, comprising the UN, the European Union, the Russian Federation and also the US.
Jan 27, 2009 - 7:53 am 21. Roddy Frankel:On the issue of settlements, Mr. Lasky correctly observes that “Not all settlers are religious.” My question to him is: Why do you even bring this point up? Does the degree of Jewish observance somehow disqualify settlers from living in the disputed territories? If a resident of Maleh Adumim only goes to temple on Yom Kippur, is this considered too religious, or is it acceptable? If Jews want to live close to the Cave of Abraham in Hebron, should they be screened based on their affiliation with Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform branches of Judaism? Or do they need to renounce Judaism altogether? Whatever happened to the free market? If an Arab is willing to sell his land in the disputed territories to a Jew, and the transaction proceeds, then who are we to say that the Jewish purchaser is an “obstacle to peace,” simply because he happens to pray every day? If a Muslim prays every day, do we hold that against him? It’s time we all dropped these double standards.
Jan 27, 2009 - 7:14 pm