George Mitchell negotiated a peace settlement in Northern Ireland. He just quit his job of special envoy to the Middle East in frustration and failure. Predictably, both the Israelis and the Palestinians praised Mitchell for his hard work and blamed the other side for the futility of it all. Appointing Mitchell was a good idea, but possibly premature. Obama probably should have kept him in reserve in case conditions became a little less unfavorable for a peace agreement. With Fatah and Hamas split for the last two years, and with Netanyahu in charge in Israel, the prospects for concessions on either side were basically nil. Mitchell never had a chance.
Ironically, as he leaves, the prospects for a peace agreement seem to be looking up. Hamas and Fatah have come to a power-sharing agreement that could theoretically allow the Palestinians to negotiate with one voice. Meanwhile, the Arab Spring has focused the minds of Israeli leaders, and the UN is set to formally recognize Palestine along the 1967 borders in the fall. How long will Netanyahu hold on to power, and who will replace him?
I don’t know, but it seems like Israel needs to get out in front of events for a change, and that could mean there will be a potential for progress.
Something is going on between the US and Bibi Netanyahu. Obama is either going to capitulate to Netanyahu or lower the hammer on him with regard to US aid. Netanyahu is scared that the Hamas and Fatah reconciliation might not be subject to sabotage this time.
If the UN formally recognizes the 1967 borders of Palestine, there are a large number of Israelis about to be asked to pay taxes to Palestine.
Politically, Israel cannot get in front of events because in the Israeli political landscape Netanyahu is now a centrist.
What it will take is for the Israeli government to be told “No” for the first time in 63 years. If Israel want aid, it can go to China and cut out the middleman. Deficits and all that, you know.
I would like to think Obama would put what’s right ahead of the political factors related to bucking Israel when the elections are coming up in 18 months. His reelection is not guaranteed, and I truly believe Obama wants to accomplish great things as president, so i think it’s possible that Obama will lower the hammer on Netanyahu. But my opinion is based more on my opinion of Obama than anything else.
I saw an article today that said Mitchell had submitted his letter in April, and the writer speculated that the timing of the announcement just before the visit was to send a message to Israel that their lack of cooperation was the reason. (can’t find the link)
Then I saw two other items:
http://mitchellplitnick.com/2011/05/14/the-ignominious-end-of-george-mitchell/
http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/13/george_mitchell_resignation
I am not close enough to the sources of those articles to fairly judge either the writers or what’s written there, so I wondered if anyone might consider sharing their thoughts on those articles.
I also wonder if anyone can shed some light on why folks seem to think that Obama will be unhappy with the vote that may be coming up in september. it seems to me that Obama is not blindly on the side of Israel and that he supports a palestinian state, so I would think he would be happy with the upcoming vote, which seems to be to be a rather elegant solution to the problem.
I probably know just enough to be dangerous on this issue. My opinions are based mostly on an outside view of this situation and my sense that Israel no longer holds the moral high ground in this argument and doesn’t seem to recognize that they are part of the problem here. My opinions on this aren’t as well informed as i’d like, so I am really asking for more information here as opposed to definitively stating a position that I can back up with facts and research.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I think it is just a bit convenient and self-serving to assume that the illegal and inhuman blockade is what has turned Hamas to a “more moderate” stance. In fact, Hamas’ top leaders have said for years that they are prepared to accept a Palestinian state in the pre-1967 West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as the capital if that is the will of the majority of Palestinians. Of course, both Israel and the United States have chosen to pretend that those statements never happened.
At the same time Israel has deliberately and systematically obviated the two-state solution by obliterating the geographic possibility of a viable Palestinian state. And yet somehow Hamas is presented as the problem.
And so it goes.
What “concessions” can the Palestinians possibly be expected to make that they haven’t made already?
Palestinian’s gather to protest Israeli occupation. An article on CNN that actually talks about the Nakba. The Palestinians aren’t displaced by choice. This is huge if the Arab Spring spreads to the occupied territories. “Right of Return Rally”. Cool.