Post-Mitchell, the air of resignation on Israel-Palestine might linger

Posted By Daniel Levy Friday, May 13, 2011 - 5:19 PM Share

On hearing the announcement of Senator George Mitchell's resignation as special envoy for Middle East peace, I skype-messaged the news to a friend in Israel known for her biting sarcasm. Her response was quick in coming and did not disappoint: "Mitchell is still the envoy, who knew?"

There's been quite a lot happening in the Middle East recently, and the Israeli-Palestinian equation has not been left untouched. Yet the special envoy for Middle East peace has not been to the Middle East since mid-December.

Sen. Mitchell was prone to remind audiences that in his last stint as a peace envoy, working on Northern Ireland, he had "700 days of failure and one day of success." Resignation day marked Sen. Mitchell's 842^nd day on the Middle East peace beat, but this time around there were no "days of success." Mitchell's original appointment came on Obama's second full day of office and was greeted in certain quarters with some enthusiasm and hope (including by this writer). In 2001, working with a strong back-office, he had produced the Sharm El-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee Report, noteworthy for its depth and sophistication of analysis. It is hard not to conclude that this time around, Sen. Mitchell has disappointed.

Not all of the blame belongs at Mitchell's door, of course. Throwing an envoy at a problem, even one with a distinguished record, is no substitute for a smart, strategic policy. Apparently the first misstep of the Obama administration on Mideast peace was its failure to step back and conduct a thorough review of what had already been tried, why things were so stuck, and to look at the structural flaws in the peace process they had inherited.

The official explanation thus far cited for Mitchell's resignation is "personal reasons." Given the timing of the announcement, days before an expected presidential speech on the Middle East and a much-anticipated visit of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, it would be almost unnatural not to speculate what else might be behind this announcement.

Two obvious reasons suggest themselves, with a third possibility that enters more counterintuitive territory. Sen. Mitchell is a Mr. Negotiator-type - that is his skill set and legal background. It may be that he sees no prospect for negotiations and therefore no reason to stay on. Some will no doubt claim that the recently signed Palestinian power-sharing deal, including Fatah and Hamas, scuppered the prospects for a resumption of negotiations. One would really have to not be paying attention to make such a claim. In the over two years of this administration, there have been 30 days in which Israelis and Palestinians were in negotiation mode and 813 days in which they have not been.

The PLO has reached the conclusion, and yes it took a while, that conducting negotiations -- absent terms of reference and against the backdrop of relentless settlement construction -- was not working so well. Israel was far chirpier with the existing negotiating modality, rejecting the change in formula as an unwarranted attempt to impose preconditions.

A second route for speculation places Envoy Mitchell on the losing side of an internal administration policy debate -- the suggestion being that Mitchell has advocated for a more forward-leaning U.S. approach, perhaps involving U.S. parameters for future negotiations.

The third, more unexpected explanation for this resignation has the administration utilizing Mitchell's final act as envoy, namely his stepping down, as a way of sending a message mainly to the Israeli prime minister that if he was not willing to step up his game in a serious way then the U.S. too could step back (something that might focus the Israeli leader's mind with a possible Palestinian move for recognition at the U.N. looming in September). There have been rumors for some time of Mitchell's imminent departure. Perhaps they were waiting for a moment of maximum impact, but more on that in a moment.

Going forward, the administration essentially has four options for approaching the Israeli-Palestinian file:

1. Lead -- A bold U.S. move to advance a solution or at least to agree a border on the '67 lines allowing for equal land swaps, creating a two-state reality. That would probably require a U.S. plan, U.S. cajoling, and a recalibration of how the U.S. applies incentives and disincentives to the parties, requiring a degree of patience and commitment over time to allow internal debates to play out in both publics.

2. "Lead from behind" (as it is now known, courtesy of an unnamed official via Ryan Lizza) -- The administration acknowledges its own limited wiggle space on this issue, given its reading of domestic politics, and allows for a more multilateral approach to achieving de-occupation and security for all. That might include an enhanced role for the Quartet and for the United Nations.

3. Follow Israel -- The administration gives practical backing and diplomatic cover to whatever conflict management approach is pursued by Israel. This is the de-facto reality that has prevailed for very many years.

4. Strategic withdrawal -- The U.S. downgrades its active involvement in the "peace process" in gradually calibrated ways. The parties are therefore less able to take cover behind the U.S., a loss that is more likely to be felt on the Israeli than the Palestinian side.

The "leading" and "leading from behind" options suffer from similar domestic political shortcomings while the price for "following Israel" continues to accumulate on the side of the ledger marked damaging America's national security interests. The strategic withdrawal option is itself hardly cost-free. America would still stand by its ally Israel and be blamed for not using its influence -- it is an option that is not sustainable over time. But in the particular confluence of circumstances existing right now, strategic withdrawal might be an interesting interim choice.

Ordinarily an Israeli leader from the right might welcome having those pesky Americans off his back -- that is not though the situation today. Right now, Netanyahu needs Obama's assistance to avoid a politically embarrassing and diplomatically unnerving outcome at the United Nations in September. Given the Palestinian intention to take this to the General Assembly, a U.S. no vote will not be enough. Israel is looking to America to help prevent any U.N. vote.

So was the timing of this announcement designed to sow a little uncertainty into Netanyahu's calculations, nudging him to deliver something more meaningful during his visit? A stretch maybe, but the administration might consider an approach along those lines. Such an approach would anyway have to be limited in duration. For its own interests, the U.S. will not want to find itself isolated and discredited in any U.N. vote, especially one of the magnitude that surrounds recognition of a Palestinian state. As September approaches, holding a gun to Netanyahu's head in this way would begin to resemble the arrival of the new sheriff of Rock Ridge taking himself hostage at gunpoint in the Mel Brooks classic, Blazing Saddles.

Finally, where does all of this leave the president's planned Middle East speech? It seems that the speech will not be Israeli-Palestinian-centric nor will it be programmatic in offering a solution for the conflict. The speech will be about the region and there's certainly enough to talk about without getting granular on Israel-Palestine. Yet Israel-Palestine also cannot be ignored. It remains a central prism through which the region and the Muslim world view the U.S, something keenly appreciated by all recent Centcom commanders. To pretend that the so-called Arab Spring proves otherwise is delusional, overlooking numerous surveys of Arab opinion, ignoring changes already underway in Egyptian policy, and providing dangerous false comfort to Israel.

President Obama could use that speech to take to the next level the home truths he started to outline in the Cairo 2009 speech. The previous message of civil rights struggle could be taken up a notch, focusing his response to the recent Palestinian unity deal on the need for nonviolence, while acknowledging existing Palestinian non-violent protests and calling on Israel to hold true to democratic values in its response. The president might note the added urgency to achieving real progress given the changing regional environment. He might even draw on the experiences of his former envoy, Sen. Mitchell, when trying to secure a settlement freeze. In acknowledging how difficult freezing, let alone evacuating, settlements is for Israel, he might ask what the alternatives are and whether those are preferable: For instance, having settlers remain as residents in a sovereign Palestinian state on the '67 lines and what the Israelis would give in return for such an outcome (Palestinian refugees return as residents to Israel?); or would Israelis rather have one shared democratic state, thereby allowing all of the settlers to remain where they are?

Across four administrations and 20 years, there has been a developing assumption of what a two-state outcome looks like. Yet it has not been implemented and today would require the withdrawal of at least 100,000 settlers. It would be honest and timely to ask whether this assumption still has validity. Perhaps Israelis will find that old two-state option more attractive when set in such a context.

One thing President Obama might not overly concern himself with is the need to preempt Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech to congress on May 24. Yes, Netanyahu will receive a rousing ovation (sadly, that would probably be the case if Netanyahu read out the phonebook, in Hebrew). But he is unlikely to offer anything of substance to change the trajectory of developments in the coming months. The members of congress in attendance might want to chew on the fact that last time Netanyahu was given the honor of addressing both chambers in 1996, there were 140,000 settlers in the West Bank alone. When this year's speech is delivered, that number will have more than doubled to over 300,000.

Should the president decide that he does want to get out ahead and lead, there will be plenty of time to do so before September, and even to give a more detailed Israel-Palestine speech -- in the words of that ex-envoy, you only need "one day of success."

Daniel Levy directs the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation and is an editor of the Middle East Channel.

AFP/Getty images

(9)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

JOHNHUNT

10:36 AM ET

May 14, 2011

Consequences of Not Removing Hamas

A real opportunity was lost when Israel didn't finish the job of removing Hamas during Operation Cast Lead. If they had done that, we wouldn't now be facing the block to a negotiated settlement which a unilateral recognition of Palestine is given a unity government between the PLO and Hamas.

Rather, if Hamas had been removed, the Palestinian Authority would have eventually accepted rule over Gaza and a negotiated Clinton's Camp David-like agreement could have been achieved with terms aceptable to parties.

O. MANSOUR

11:12 AM ET

May 14, 2011

The issue is...

IF the US, as a global power, would be interested in peace, then there will be peace. The US has been biased for a long time at the side of Israelis in many ways. Providing billions of dollars, helping in develop armed facilities, political blindness towards any anti-occupational international decisions, and so on.

The problem, put it simply, is that there are two people on one land. One is more powerful and enforcing the reality on the ground. The other people is vulnerable looking for independence and freedom. The US should simply divide this land between the two people (most Israelis and Pals agree on this except ideologists of course like Bibi and Liberman, Meshal and Zahhar, etc...) so each people would live in their part. And this nothing new in this. We have the 1967 border, E. Jerusalem to be well known factors for a solution to this conflict. The third factor that is the right of return is naturally fixed if the first two are solved. Pals who decide to go back to their state can do that within the border of a Palestinian state. I STILL dont understand why isn't this happening until now. Perhaps common say would tell us that Israel an occupier would never give up land given their colonialist mindset.

In short, we don't need another version of Dennis Ross or Mitchell, we need the US to come up on the surface and tell the world that this occupation must end. Give the Pals their state based on 1967 (which Hamas also agrees upon), E. Jerusalem as a capital, and things will be fine. The US is part of this occupation because simply it is the one impeding an end of it (e.g., vetoing every decision against Israel in the security council). How shameful! And here we are we continue to read assumptions, analyses, and other bla bla just to add more complexity on something naive.

HEY WORLD: it is OBVIOUS!

DR GONZO

1:42 PM ET

May 14, 2011

Flogging a dead horse

Come on people. The Peace Process has been dead for years now. Even Foreign Policy has talked about it with the likes of Aaron David Miller (who was part of the negotiating team at Camp David) writing on its hopelessness.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/19/the_false_religion_of_mideast_peace

The peace process has already died now it is beginning to smell up the place thus the reason Mitchell has decided to walk away and why Obama won't touch it until at least his second term.

At the end of the day the US has proven that they are completely compromised on the issue and should never have been the primary mediator. Let it go to the UN or EU or Russia-China or The Elders, absolutely any other venue in International Relations would be better for moving forward than the US.

I respect Mitchell for accurately judging that spending his twilight years trying to juggle Israeli Palestinian and US concerns on the peace process was probably a waste of time.

GAHGEER

7:45 PM ET

May 14, 2011

2011 sorted

Obviously sticking Dennis Ross in the process emptied Mitchell's of any meaning.

Then, it was said that inserting Ross had been aimed at improving communication between Israel and the Obama administration.

But in reality, good-communicator Ross did nothing. He kept coming back with Netanyahu's No's and Can'ts, and in the mean t ime made Mitchell look to the Palestinians and the Israelis like a fool.

(http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-13/george-mitchell-resigns-what-envoys-awkward-exit-signals-for-mideast/?om_rid=D0sEzQ&om_mid=_BNzoV4B8bF36EG#)

Otherwise, it looks like a Palestine on 1967 lands will be declared at the UN this September - since internal US politics have got no sway at the General Assembly.

Clearing out Israel's legacy in the West Bank (settelemtns, border dispute resolution) will either require Obama, if he wins, or the Palestinian Facebook Intifada.

DSGIUSIYH

10:56 PM ET

May 14, 2011

dfgfdhbdg

tfghytgcbrtgfvctv
fsdfdfsgdf

AKIVA

6:57 PM ET

May 15, 2011

Finally....

Finally, someone who makes sense. :-)

PULLER58

10:09 AM ET

May 16, 2011

Mitchell did what he was supposed to do

He occupied a place which had little value, and thus needed someone with little concern over grand titles and pageantry. (Hillary wouldn't ever accept such a position. Even her clearly handcuffed role as SoS allows her some stature.) George Mitchell may have been a Senator once, but his ambition clearly retired once he left the Senate.

SABABA03

12:45 PM ET

May 16, 2011

Islamists REAL Agenda for Israel

The various stages of Islamists Agenda to eliminate Israel, and subjugate the Jews to Islam.

Phase I - THE DENIAL & DE-LEGITIMIZATION.
1) They label the Israelis with names, like “Zionists” (means “Jews” w/o sounding antisemitic). Later used to defeat the very reason of their existence.
2) Deny the Holocaust, to remove the very reason for which Israel was created. (re: the Akmed in Tehran).
3) Question & deny the Jewish history, or their continued presence in and around Jerusalem (Arafat: in 2000 Camp David).

Phase II – “ZIONISM” AND THE “APARTHEID” EFFECT.
1) They Know that Zionism was a political movement, created in 1899 to empower the Jews to live in their own homeland, safe from further persecutions.
2) They Emphasis only the role of the European Jews, - while never mention the 1.2M Jewish refugees, whom they pushed out from their own countries.
3) Wrap the “South Africa” noose and its infamous “Apartheid” system around the Israelis neck.
4) Continue to convince the world community (through UN Resolutions) that Zionism is a system of Apartheid – which they did succeed of doing for a period of time.
5) They know that, by calling Israelis “Jews”, they just have affirmed Israel's right to exist as homeland for Jews, which so far they have refused to do.
6) They Follow the late Nazi, Joseph Goebbels's gospel. “A lie, if repeated loud, and repeated often enough, soon people will believe it as the absolute truth.
7) Never admit in public (certainly not in English), that subjugation of Jews, is the Islamists ultimate objective - prescribed in Islam's holy book.

Phase II - THE PROVOCATION & THE VICTIMIZED.
1). Coupled with Phase II, they keep low intensity provocations (such as rockets from Gaza), and hope for IDF response (which most certainly does follow). And the latest incursion from Syria into Israeli territory.
2) They Show the gory pictures of their dead children to TV viewers world wide, to generate sympathy for them, and anger against the Israelis.
3). They repeat it often enough such that, the picture of “the ugly Israeli solder shooting innocent civilians” is kept fresh in people's mind and heart. Render Israel as “racist”, “brutal”, and “ugly” element living among the “peaceful” Arabs.

Phase IV - THE PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE
1) Recognizing the power of words. When speaking for the Palestinians, they use keywords like, “Justice”, “fairness”, “Indigenous people”, “occupied”, “victims”, “legal owners”, and “Right of Return” - to conjure up positive imagery of the Pals in people's minds.
2. When however, it comes to Israel, they use words like “Stolen land”, “Occupier”, “discrimination”, “Apartheid”, “massacre”, “criminal”, “war Crimes”, and even “Genocide” is brought up.
3) They keep their people in those refugees camps, throughout the Arab & Islamic states since 1948” to:
a) Continue to play on peoples emotions and sympathy – keep the flame of anti-Israeli alive.
b) Keep them as “reserve solders” to be used to flood Israel – all under the pretense of “right of Return”. Then use its democracy to destroy, not only its democracy, but itself as the homeland for Jews.
4) In order to incite the larger Muslim crowd, they speak of “Islamic land” (Waqf).
5) In English to the world media, their leaders speak of “peaceful co-existence with Israel”. In Arabic to their own crowd, they shout of “war” and “annihilation of the infidels”.
6) “The good Guy / Bad Guy” scenario. While PLO in WB, depicts the image of the “civilized” “peace loving Palestinians” who is ready to compromise. Hamas in Gaza, plays the opposite role. To force the Israelis for more and more concession, until nothing is left for them to concede.
7) Use homicide bombing to create psychological fear among the Israelis, with hope they will flee. (“Jews love life, we love death”).
8) Through continued propaganda, render Israel as the source of the problem, and its eliminations as the only solution to all the unrest throughout the Islamic countries.

PJW5552

1:34 PM ET

May 18, 2011

No trust, cooperation and compromise means war.

Peace efforts failed because the primary conditions necessary for peace are: Trust, cooperation and compromise. You don't encourage these by building barriers (more settlements); imposing conditions (Israeli soldiers must remain in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is Israel's) and imposing your will by force (barrier walls, shooting unarmed civilians, preventing humanitarian aid from reaching Gaza and preventing all trade with it).

Abbas was absolutely correct to go to the UN and request recognition as an independent nation. Once the present administration vetoed even the condemnation of Israeli West Bank settlements in the UN security council it was clear the US had no intention of being an honest broker to that peace effort.

Obama should step away. The conditions for war are going to grow and will get worse in the coming months. Israel firmly believes it can do as it wishes, inflame tensions and feed the hatred of its neighbors by its actions, work with no one and impose its will on all who dare question it. Okay, the consequences of that behavior are obvious. I sure hope Israel believes in miracles. It is going to need a doosey of a miracle within the next 2 years. Israel has a population of 7.5 million people. It is surrounded by over 200 million Arabs who don't particularly like it. Moreover, the Arab Spring has or will replace dictatorial leaders in those Arab nations with leaders that will have to be more responsive to the 200 million Arab voices that elected them.

Israel had its chance to make peace, encourage trust, facilitate cooperation and make compromises required for peace. It decided instead not to go that route. Okay, it's been Israel's choice. Time to make sure the US isn't pulled into their abyss. Let Israel live with the consequences of their own making. Keep the US out of the inevitable outcome to soon follow.