« At Lincoln Memorial Concert, Bono Invokes the Palestinians Plus: Bill Kristol Attacks Jews For Not Loving George W. Bush | Home | U.K. and U.S. Drop Their (and Israel's) Grand Strategy »
Great News: George Mitchell To Be Middle East Special Envoy
It looks like former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell is going to be the Middle East Special Envoy.
This is great news. Absolutely impartial (although of Arab-American descent), Mitchell has the respect of both sides. He is best known for having been Bill Clinton's Special Envoy to Northern Ireland where he brought the IRA and the Protestant militias (plus all the moderates of both sides) to the Good Friday agreement and peace.
Mitchell will not sully that reputation by not succeeding with Israelis and Palestinians. Obama is not yet President but it appears (nothing is 100%) that change has ciome already.
Advertisement
This is excellent news! He would have been my top pick for the job.
January 19, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, the heck with Mr. Rosenberg's views on this. What does Roger Clemens have to say about it?
January 19, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Roger is psyched
January 19, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is great news, MJ. It means Obama is serious.
January 19, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
do you know of any reason whay I cannot access your column 'The stupidity of the right'?
I had access and I commented twice, after the second comment I lost the site and now get a "you don't have permission..."message.
January 19, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: Were you quoted correctly in Wiki on Ross?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Ross
Money Quote:
"He is the first chairman of a new Jerusalem based think tank, the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, funded and founded by the Jewish Agency. Ross's involvement in the Institute led some to assume that he would not resume his role as Middle East peace envoy, M. J. Rosenberg of Talking Points Memo commented, "I had thought that former Middle East peace envoy Dennis Ross hoped to return to mediation when the next administration comes in. Apparently, he's had it. He is currently in Israel chairing a major Jewish leadership conference on the future of Israel and the Jewish people -- with Netanyahu, Zuckerman, top AIPAC leaders and many of the other 'usual suspects.' This is not the kind of thing one does if one intends to get back into the 'honest broker' business. This is like George Mitchell (a Lebanese-American) chairing a session in Beirut on the Arab future. If he did that, Mitchell could still work on Ireland but not the Middle East."[9]
January 19, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow...can you believe it!? A cease fire on both sides... even if it's only fleeting....
January 19, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the good news, MJ.
Mitchell is a fine man and an excellent choice.
Mythbuster is right. If this is confirme, it is one more very solid indication that the US government is bidding farewell to high school antics and C- students running our country into the ground, and instead that intelligent people will work intelligently on important challenges.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2003/comm-mitchell-speech.html
January 19, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What will happen to Dennis Ross? I thought it likely he would get the Middle East Envoy posting but perhaps there is another arena his talents could be used in. The good thing about the Obama Administration, among so many, is that there are so many talented people to choose from for so many situations. I hope what see now as 'change' we can believe in, will become the 'status quo' we can believe in. And, ultimately, as things tend to go with some human beings, the 'status quo' we can take for 'granted': because we'll all be so satisfied and happy with adults and really serious people doing things right for a change. Works for me.
January 19, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully, Ross will get nothing more than a college professorship somewhere.
January 19, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correctimundo! Obama campaigners see a future in academia for Ross!
George Mitchell will be interested in achieving results, not documenting failure. He'll be 76 in August by the way; I'm wishing him health and transformational success in this.
January 19, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong!
He is hired! His portfolio will be the entire Mideast rather than just Israel-Palestine.
Financial Times, Jan. 8, "Obama picks Ross as Mideast envoy."
The entire leaked announcement memo is here on Jim Lobe's IPS blog:
http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=215
Really surprised you don't know this, Dan.
January 19, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if you read this Oct. 28 interview with Ha'aretz
"Dennis Ross on why he's working for Obama and how he'd talk to Iran"
it looks pretty clear to me that, rather than go back to Israel/Palestine negotiations, it was the bigger strategic Iran and the Mideast job he wanted and that is basically the job he got.
January 19, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
And from what I have read, I don't expect any change in taking a public hard line against Hamas and Hezbollah, as they see that as crucial strategically with Iran (and Iraq next door, of course, not to mention the hard line Obama has always taken denouncing anything Islamic-terrorist-related vis-a-vis Afghanistan and Pakistan.)
See "Obama team takes new tack on Iran amid Mideast peace push," AFP, 5 days ago,
quote from Clinton confirmation hearing:
BUT there was this in The Guardian January 9:
Looks pretty clear to me that publicly they will be pushing Fatah, Abbas and any other alternatives that might come up to counter Hamas, that they will never show any overt encouragement to Hamas of any kind, unless by some miracle Hamas should change their charter and whole mission. To do covert talk is not to approve, to do covert talk is probably to try to peel off some Hamas supporters, to entice them to go off in another direction, to find the cracks in Hamas.
BTW, what did George Mitchell ever do to make you think he would not pretty much agree with the views of Dennis Ross and Hillary Clinton? It says in today's NYTimes that his report commissioned by Bill Clinton in 2000 and released in 2001 called for a Palestinian crackdown on terrorism as well as a freeze on Israeli settlements (and note: a freeze, not a dismantlement.) If you're imputing something special to his Lebanese background, well his Lebanese mother raised him Maronite Catholic, and that's not exactly a group holding great sway in the current Islamic world...that and a dime will get you...
He's a superb negotitator and a great choice, but I don't see any reason to think he will be following any different line from a Ross or a Clinton.
January 19, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
He can keep working for Israel pro bono.
January 19, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Instead of Ross? Yes! Obama scores again.
January 19, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wikipedia traces an academic interest in conflict resolution among nations on the part of the busy-bee Mitchell:
"Since 2002, Mitchell has been a Senior Fellow and Senior Research Scholar at the Columbia University Center for International Conflict Resolution, where he works to help end or avert conflicts between nations.
...In 2007, he became a visiting Professor in Leeds Metropolitan University's School of Applied Global Ethics and the University is developing a new Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution bearing his name."
He's also Chancellor of some university in Northern Island, besides doing countless other things. If anybody knows how to bring together the Hatfields and McCoys, it's Mitchell.
January 19, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Mitchell is clearly the better choice for this important position. Obama does know how to pick'em.
January 19, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I too, was going to read Mr. Rosenbergs column titled "The Stupidity of the Right", but I couldn't. So I waited, came back and now it seems to have disappeared. Maybe not ready for prime time.
January 19, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is important to set proper expectations about what Mitchell can hope to achieve, and it isn't about getting all parties to a grand negotiation, such as what happened in Northern Ireland.
The success of the Northern Irish situation had a number of precursors, all of which are absent in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The most important of these is that the extremist party with the goal of upending the status quo, Sinn Fein, made a strategic decision after decades of winking at IRA terrorism to go straight. It was clear they were losing support. Secondly, their former patrons in the Irish Republic worked hand-in-hand with the British government to make it clear to the warring parties on both sides that violence and terrorism were not acceptable. Thirdly, there was a "moderate" party on the Catholic side that was a credible interlocutor with the Protestants. Fourthly, there was a decision on the part of the mainstream Unionist leadership to agree to power-sharing and to address some long-standing festering issues, such as the composition of the police.
Needless to say, this is about as far from the current situation in the Middle East as it's possible to get. It's an imperfect analogy to be sure, but the equivalent of the "unionists" in the Middle East, Israel, don't have anything like the credible Social Democratic and Labor Party (the moderate Catholic party in Northern Ireland) to negotiate with. Fatah is simply not credible as a negotiating partner. It is too weak.
More importantly, there is no one that is playing the crucial role of the Irish Republic. It was absolutely essential to the Irish peace that a confident, prosperous Ireland, a partner with Britain in the EU, tell the IRA and Sinn Fein that they would have no support from them if they continued their violent tactics. In my opinion, it was the single most important factor in changing the dynamic of the conflict. If the Arab League were to make peace with Israel, that would bring a similar jolt to the peace process in the Middle East. Instantly, Hamas would lose support and Israel would have some cover to begin to prepare itself for the national trauma that would accompany uprooting settlements in the West Bank.
The common assumption is that Israel must withdraw from the West Bank and then the Arab states will consider peace. It won't happen. Peace with the Arab world must be established or be clearly seen as inevitable before Israel will consider withdrawal. Mark my words.
January 19, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who had children living in London throughout the IRA bombing campaign and naturally paid close attention ,I second BTD's description of that situation when Mitchell was involved.
Obviously I deplored the IRA's tactics including the lethal fire bombing of pubs and of City locations which one of my daughters routinely visited. As I now deplore Hamas' missile attacks on Siderot.
But in neither case does that affect my view of the underlying equities. These are wars and in wars civilians are killed whenever that's useful.
As Clausewitz recommended. Altho his advice was redundant with respect to such a time- honored tactic.
Just as, with respect to Northern Ireland , Mitchell didn't hestitate to meet with Paisley and Adams tho both had blood on their hands before after and during those meetings, now he will surely meet with whomever leads the parties.
Which will be an improvement.
I don't share BTD's view that the necessary conditions for peace include a believable Arab committement to peace and an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank settlements. A good thing too, since neither will ever happen.
What is a necessary condition for peace is the deeply unpopular stationing in Israel of a permanent US force. Which would eliminate Israel's existential fears and simultaneously provide a "Golden Bridge" so the Palestinian leaders can put down their arms without suffering the humiliation of having to acknowledge being defeated by the hated Israelis.
That's not the only necessary condition but it's the sine qua non. I don't really expect Mitchell to be able to bring that about, but I expect he'll recognize its necessity.
January 19, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Flavius: Stationing American troops in Israel would be "deeply unpopular" because American troops would be an impediment to further land confiscations.
Israel wants freedom of action, not "security."
January 19, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever gets you through the day, mythbuster...
I actually think that American troops would be welcomed by Israel as part of a peace arrangement. But the chances of it happening are exceedingly unlikely, mostly because the US military doesn't do peacekeeping that well and there would be very little political support for such a deployment. Could you imagine the reaction the first time a terrorist blows up some American troops?
January 19, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not likely to happen--unless the American GI tries to evict a Palestinian from his home.
Of course, that form of theft is only practiced by your Zionist friends.
January 19, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps naively I would hope the US force's only function would be to serve as a trip wire as our forces in Germany did after WW2 and still do in Korea.
They weren't nearly adequate to deter an invasion but reassured those populations that were there one we would have no choice but to respond.
Insecurity surely plays some part in Israeli public opinion. If that were eliminated the "Rabins" might be somewhat less eclipsed by the "Netanyahus".
January 19, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ and others want to see Obama conduct talks with HAMAS. I am all for it, although I can save time and tell Obama people what the HAMAS will tell them...they lay it out very clearly in their charter: HAMAS is in a war to the death with Israel in which the aim of HAMAS is the eradication of Israel (G-d forbid).
There you have it in a nutshell. Don't know what Mitchell is going to do about this.
January 19, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"MJ and others want to see Obama conduct talks with HAMAS."
Hamas explicitly advocates killing every Jew on Earth. Of course, MJ wants Obama to conduct talks with Hamas. It is AIPAC that MJ wants Obama to shun. Genocidal anti-Semites must be heard. Supporters of Israel must be excluded.
Over the past two weeks, Muslims in London and Calgary have marched through Jewish sections of town chanting, "Death To The Jews".
Just thought I'd mention it, since Rosenberg and Marshall never will.
January 19, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I expect in their hearts, whether or not they ave chanting, most Israelis would welcome the death of all Palestinians. At one time most Navajos would have welcomed the death of all palefaces and probably did chant that before going out to kill as many as possible.
Much tho both peoples might want to see the deaths of everyone of the others, at some point the Palestinians and the Israelis will settle for what they can get. Not that that will result in a peace on which either can rely. But they'll call it peace , keep their arms, and wait for it to break down. Maybe that will take 100 years, or 400 years as in Ireland. But in the meanwhile there'll be fewer deaths.
January 19, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wisdom. Real wisdom. Vilification will inevitably follow.
January 19, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Flavius: Though I often disagree with your comments, I respect you as a commenter. This one, however, is patently ludicrous. There is not, nor to my knowledge has there ever been, any group in Israel (or at the very least, any group in Israel that commands more than a handful of supporters) that advocates the death or extermination of Palestinians. To say that "most Israelis would welcome the deaths of all Palestinians" is outrageous. Let me remind you that Israel could easily have inflicted far more casualties in Gaza than it did. I don't say this to excuse what some see as excessive Israeli use of force, or to minimize the unbearable suffering of innocents there. Check out Steven Erlanger's recent pieces in the NYT that shed some light on the difficult decisions faced by soldiers in battle that defy the facile characterization of so many as so-called "war crimes."
I doubt that every "man on the street" who voted for Hamas actually welcomes the death of jews. But there is no doubt that the movement's leaders loudly and proudly profess this goal in public, in schools, in its noxious propaganda, and that a significant number of the movement's followers agree. Indeed, so committed are they to their intractable goals that the lives of their own people are subordinate. They boast of using women, children and the elderly as human shields, placing them at military targets and daring the Israelis to fire. At the end of the day, despite the suffering and devastation, they declare victory and insist on continuing their heroic struggle.
Now, if there were a territory on your border ruled by such fanatics who deny your right to remain there, openly call for the deaths of your citizens and make good on their words through suicide attacks on buses and in malls and by regularly firing rockets into your territory, and are smuggling in more powerful rockets whose sole purpose is to kill still more civilians in the name of their "resistance," what would your response be?
That said, I think Mitchell is as good a choice as any.
January 19, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
My view is that,sadly, most Israelis approve of the bombing of Gasa fully understanding that many of those killed were simply civilians. And that,sadly, most Palestinians approve of the occasional Israeli civilians killed by Hamas missiles and in fact wish the missiles had been more effective.
Do you disagree ?
January 19, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree with your view - as clarified.
I would add, though, that while most Israelis approved the bombing (with some notable exceptions) understanding that many of those killed were civilians, most would wish that no civilians had to die, and most mourn the loss of innocent life. Was is a wretched business, and one may debate whether the means were excessive to achieving the goals, or whether the goals themselves were worthy, but I also believe strongly that the IDF takes precautions to minimize civilian casualties. As in any war, however, protection of ones' own troops is paramount, mistakes are made, excesses are inevitable and suffering is from these Western eyes, unbearable.
I can't speak for the Palestinians except what I read, but judging by their leaders' comments, the deaths of Israelis are welcomed as an end unto themselves. And their tactics intentionally place their own citizens at grave risk. How else to explain firing rockets at Israeli towns from densely populated areas?
But I return to the question of my penultimate paragraph. What would you do?
January 19, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will answer your question but first want to disassociate myself from the premise.
I believe that people are all alike....
.....but may come to seem different because of the particular circumstances that affect them. One of Hitler's many sins was to convince a substantial portion of the Germans to think that the Jews were different.The necessary first step to cause them to be willing to treat the Jews inhumanely.As to what I would do in your hypothetical situation, I posted here at the beginning of the bombing that I agreed with the Israeli's action as is, where is but that they should have an exit strategy. I then posted after five days that the Israelis should announce they were stopping but would resume immediately if another missile was fired.
January 20, 2009 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you're still reading this late in the game...
We're not so far apart after all.
I would agree with 90% of what you wrote. The one caveat is that cultural differences do exist and shape how people respond to events. The movement Hamas represents is of a piece with Arab rejection of any jewish sovereignty in the Middle East since immigration began in the late 19th century, and their tactics of terrorizing civilians go back just as far. Hamas also must be seen in the context of the rise of Islamist movements across the Arab world.
January 20, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but.
I think of the last Amos Oz book of autobiography and the social event to which he and his parents were invited by a wealthy local Palestinian for whom his father had done a favor.
Along with the pogroms there were Palestinians who behaved decently.
January 20, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see how anyone could find fault with this pick. The man's track record is outstanding and hopefully provides him some modicum of respect from all sides.
January 19, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
George Mitchell will have to work with Hamas.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292907998&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
January 19, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
AnnaA: Fatah did collaborate. And they deserve the same treatment that Vichy French collaborators got at the end of WWII.
January 19, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Fatah people got what they deserve. Egypt and Jordan leaders are the next.
January 19, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
AnnaA and mythbuster: Thanks for letting us know where your sympathies lie. Since you seem sympathetic to Hamas, do you also agree with their leaders that this was a great and heroic "victory?"
January 19, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with M.J. Rosenberg that "The last three weeks have done serious, maybe incalculable damage to Israel".
January 19, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to think of it as more a blip. Palestinian rights is this month's flavor, but the pendulum may soon swing back to the usual my-Israel-right-or-wrong line, with anyone seeking progress being demonized with the usual slurs and character assassination.
It's what I'm guessing, anyway.
January 19, 2009 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sympathetic to Hamas. I am just unsympathetic to people who betray their own people. I guess you don't understand the difference.
January 20, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
A gentile permitted a say in our Middle East policy?!
What's next, women's suffrage?
January 20, 2009 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink