Mitchell’s pick can’t sit well with either side

Posted by Clyde Middleton on Jan 22 2009 Filed under Israel, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

Obama has asked former Sen. George Mitchell (D-ME) to be an envoy to the Middle East situation.

Will he accept? “A lot of it depends on to whom he is going to report. Is he going to report directly to the president or is he going to report through the secretary (of state) to the president,” the source added.

Too funny. Seems the answer may be “no” if he is to report to Hillary (PBUH). Take the Arab-Israeli conflict out of the international diplomacy mix, and it seems that Hillary (PBUH) may be back having tea and crumpets outside Belfast.

Speaking of Belfast, that was three gigs ago for Mitchell. He worked out the dry-heave stage of The Troubles, getting Ireland to accept continued occupation of a portion of their country by Betty Windsor & The Englishmen.

After that stint, he did a fact-finding report for Clinton on the Palestinian occupation of historically Israeli lands (more in a bit), and, finally, he headed the steroids investigation for MLB.

The report on his previous Middle East stint is here. In a delicate bit of understatement, Mitchell characterized the two sides:

Despite their long history and close proximity, some Israelis and Palestinians seem not to fully appreciate each other’s problems and concerns. Some Israelis appear not to comprehend the humiliation and frustration that Palestinians must endure every day as a result of living with the continuing effects of occupation, sustained by the presence of Israeli military forces and settlements in their midst, or the determination of the Palestinians to achieve independence and genuine self-determination. Some Palestinians appear not to comprehend the extent to which terrorism creates fear among the Israeli people and undermines their belief in the possibility of co-existence, or the determination of the GOI to do whatever is necessary to protect its people. Fear, hate, anger, and frustration have risen on both sides.

Of course, a few things are presumed. Since a person cannot burgle their own home, it seems odd to state that Israel is subjecting anyone to an “occupation” of Israeli lands. Second, it has been clear for decades that the Palestinians have no interest in self-determination. They wish – or perhaps more accurately, the leaders they democratically elect wish – to continue the sordid state of affairs in hopes of out-lasting the Israelis. All one needs to do is recall the 1951 nighttime rooftop meeting between David Ben-Gurion and JFK as they looked out on Jerusalem: The Jewish side was illuminated with commercial and residential life; the Muslim side was dark. The situation has not changed much in the ensuing 58 years.

Mitchell’s report summarized the path to coexistence quickly:

What is important is that the PA make an all-out effort to enforce a complete cessation of violence and that it be clearly seen by the GOI as doing so. The GOI must likewise exercise a 100 percent effort to ensure that potential friction points, where Palestinians come into contact with armed Israelis, do not become stages for renewed hostilities.
…
A cessation of Palestinian-Israeli violence will be particularly hard to sustain unless the GOI freezes all settlement construction activity.

To this day, the PA has not done this. The Government of Israel has.

Another point of contention is to bring in outsiders. The Mitchell report stated this:

One of the most controversial subjects raised during our inquiry was the issue of deploying an international force to the Palestinian areas. The PA is strongly in favor of having such a force to protect Palestinian civilians and their property from the IDF and from settlers. The GOI is just as adamantly opposed to an “international protection force,” believing that it would prove unresponsive to Israeli security concerns and interfere with bilateral negotiations to settle the conflict.

Now, Hamas wants Turkey to come in. Israel will not agree to such a request. Russia will be knocking soon enough.

In a rather long assault on Mitchell’s report, a Palestinian states the following:

As a confidence-building measure, the Mitchell report demands that “the PA…make a 100 percent effort to prevent terrorist operations and to punish perpetrators…[and undertake] immediate steps to apprehend and incarcerate terrorists operating within the PA’s jurisdiction.” Such a vague formulation can only be interpreted as a call for mass repression of popular and/or organized resistance to continued Israeli occupation. The report effectively holds the PA accountable for any act committed by a Palestinian individual or political organization, including attacks within Israeli territory by Hamas or other opposition elements. Mitchell’s assessment pointedly declines to call for an investigation of Israeli conduct in the Occupied Territories, despite severe condemnations by international human rights groups of that conduct. Hence the report rejects the notion that Israel can or should be held responsible for gross violations of the human rights of civilian Palestinian non-combatants (including the killing of at least 120 Palestinian children), or held to standards even remotely similar to those applied to the PA. The deployment of an “international protection force” is made conditional on Israeli approval.

The writing is full of assertions that the report is pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian.

The situation has changed significantly since 2001 when the report was issued. First, consider the Jonathan Pollard issue. Clinton promised and reneged to commute his sentence. President Bush just left office without commuting the sentence. Israel will demand his release.

Hamas is a much larger player, and Iran is a much more open player. Syria will play the role of The Two-faced Diplomat – Mitchell by day, Iran by night. The PA cannot control Hamas, and Hamas will not accept any change of course unless they have a seat at the table. Israel will not sit with Hamas as it did the PLO. Where does Gilad Shalit fit into the mix?

What will Mitchell do the second time? Similar mantra: Cessation of hostilities; control of activities on the respective lands. Those are obvious, and not easily achieved.

Creating a Palestinian state is complicated by Israel’s appropriate refusal to give safe passage between Gaza and the West Bank across Israeli lands. How will access to scared tombs and other places be resolved into a sovereign nation?

Mitchell has his hands full, and neither country will trust him.

Share

Save

Related Posts

1. Canada gets it: Israel’s open road
2. America’s Arab Enemies Feel Betrayed By Hillary Pick for Sec. State
3. Did Palestinian Spotters Help Israel Assassinate Mahmoud al Mabhouh?
4. Build, Baby, Build! (Israel lays the cement)
5. Presbyterian Church elders are poised to defame Israel

Short URL: http://libertypundits.net/?p=2864