Old Hand for an Old Mission -Jackson Diehl
President Obama named former senator George J. Mitchell [pictured] as a special envoy to the Middle East. The 75-year-old Arab American's return to duty was a reminder that much of what the new administration is facing in the region isn't new - and neither is the initial strategy Obama has adopted.
Mitchell headed a panel that was launched in the last days of the Clinton administration, and in May 2001 delivered recommendations to the Bush administration that called for a cease-fire, followed by a series of confidence-building measures. The problem, of course, is that the Mitchell plan of 2001 was a flop. Formally endorsed by all sides, endlessly discussed for more than a year, it eventually went nowhere. So why try the Mitchell approach again?
(Washington Post)
President Obama named former senator George J. Mitchell [pictured] as a special envoy to the Middle East. The 75-year-old Arab American's return to duty was a reminder that much of what the new administration is facing in the region isn't new - and neither is the initial strategy Obama has adopted.
Mitchell headed a panel that was launched in the last days of the Clinton administration, and in May 2001 delivered recommendations to the Bush administration that called for a cease-fire, followed by a series of confidence-building measures. The problem, of course, is that the Mitchell plan of 2001 was a flop. Formally endorsed by all sides, endlessly discussed for more than a year, it eventually went nowhere. So why try the Mitchell approach again?
(Washington Post)
History's tragic farce –Caroline Glick
In December 2000, outgoing president Bill Clinton appointed Mitchell to advise him on how to reignite the "peace process" after the Palestinians rejected statehood and launched their terror war against Israel. Mitchell presented his findings to Clinton's successor, George W. Bush, in April 2001.
Mitchell asserted that Israel and the Palestinians were equally to blame for the Palestinian terror war against Israelis. He recommended that Israel end all Jewish construction outside the 1949 armistice lines, and stop fighting Palestinian terrorists.
As for the Palestinians, Mitchell said they had to make a "100 percent effort" to prevent the terror that they themselves were carrying out. This basic demand was nothing new. It formed the basis of the Clinton administration's nod-nod-wink-wink treatment of Palestinian terrorism since the Palestinian Authority was established in 1994.
By insisting that the PLO make a "100 percent effort," to quell the terror it was enabling, the Clinton administration gave the Palestinians built-in immunity from responsibility. Every time that his terrorists struck, Yasser Arafat claimed that their attacks had nothing to do with him. He was making a "100 percent effort" to stop the attacks, after all.
Mitchell, of course, is not the only one repeating the past. His boss, Barack Obama, is about to repeat the failures his immediate predecessors. Like Clinton and Bush, Obama is making the establishment of a Palestinian state the centerpiece of his foreign policy agenda. Obama made this clear his first hour on the job. On Wednesday at 8 a.m., Obama made his first phone call to a foreign leader. He called PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas [and] pledged his commitment to Palestinian statehood.
Apparently, no one in positions of power in Washington has stopped to consider why it is that in spite of the fervent backing of presidents Clinton and Bush, there is still no Palestinian state.
[T]he US ha[s] based [its] plans for peace on the assumption that the PLO is interested in making peace, [a]nd the assumption that the Palestinians are interested in statehood. Yet over the past 15 years it has become abundantly clear that neither of these assumptions is correct.
Given that there is no chance that Israeli territorial giveaways will lead to a peaceful Palestinian state, is there any way to compel American politicians to give up their fantasies of fancy signing ceremonies in the White House Rose Garden? As far as Mitchell is concerned the answer is no.
So much for "change" in US foreign policy.
[Jerusalem Post]
In December 2000, outgoing president Bill Clinton appointed Mitchell to advise him on how to reignite the "peace process" after the Palestinians rejected statehood and launched their terror war against Israel. Mitchell presented his findings to Clinton's successor, George W. Bush, in April 2001.
Mitchell asserted that Israel and the Palestinians were equally to blame for the Palestinian terror war against Israelis. He recommended that Israel end all Jewish construction outside the 1949 armistice lines, and stop fighting Palestinian terrorists.
As for the Palestinians, Mitchell said they had to make a "100 percent effort" to prevent the terror that they themselves were carrying out. This basic demand was nothing new. It formed the basis of the Clinton administration's nod-nod-wink-wink treatment of Palestinian terrorism since the Palestinian Authority was established in 1994.
By insisting that the PLO make a "100 percent effort," to quell the terror it was enabling, the Clinton administration gave the Palestinians built-in immunity from responsibility. Every time that his terrorists struck, Yasser Arafat claimed that their attacks had nothing to do with him. He was making a "100 percent effort" to stop the attacks, after all.
Mitchell, of course, is not the only one repeating the past. His boss, Barack Obama, is about to repeat the failures his immediate predecessors. Like Clinton and Bush, Obama is making the establishment of a Palestinian state the centerpiece of his foreign policy agenda. Obama made this clear his first hour on the job. On Wednesday at 8 a.m., Obama made his first phone call to a foreign leader. He called PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas [and] pledged his commitment to Palestinian statehood.
Apparently, no one in positions of power in Washington has stopped to consider why it is that in spite of the fervent backing of presidents Clinton and Bush, there is still no Palestinian state.
[T]he US ha[s] based [its] plans for peace on the assumption that the PLO is interested in making peace, [a]nd the assumption that the Palestinians are interested in statehood. Yet over the past 15 years it has become abundantly clear that neither of these assumptions is correct.
Given that there is no chance that Israeli territorial giveaways will lead to a peaceful Palestinian state, is there any way to compel American politicians to give up their fantasies of fancy signing ceremonies in the White House Rose Garden? As far as Mitchell is concerned the answer is no.
So much for "change" in US foreign policy.
[Jerusalem Post]
2 comments:
One can certainly argue the futility of using Mitchell. Perhaps it is just a first step to use a knowledgeable hand and see where he thinks the current state of the situation is. Nevertheless, the US cannot and must not, abandon the stance for a Palestinian state. It may not be workable, it may not seem realistic and it may never be embraced as workable, but then that must come from an Arab alliance, or the Palestinian peoples failure. If any nation friendly to Israel were to proclaim such an ideal as impossible, it would be used against Israel and our own interests in the MidEast, as well as yet another rationale for terrorism that would be supported by the rank and file Arabs and useful as yet another recruiting tool. No, the failure of a Palestinian state must be viewed to rest squarely on the backs of the Palestinians despite all the support and help Israel and the Western World could possibly give it.
Reasonable.
I just found another great soundbite on Michell that will appear in the blog when i can find the time to trim it down.
It's funny in an odd sort of way.
Post a Comment