George Mitchell Under Consideration For Middle East Envoy Post
| Mon Jan. 19, 2009 10:00 AM PST
Former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, who successfully mediated peace in Northern Ireland in the late 1990s, is reportedly on the short list of candidates to become the Obama adminisitration's special envoy to the Middle East. Recent reports have indicated that Richard A. Haas, a former State Department official and current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, is also under consideration, but the Council denies Haas is up for the job.
At first glance, Mitchell may not seem the most obvious choice for the Middle East envoy job. Others have far more experience in the region, and Mitchell's success in Northern Ireland does not necessarily translate to the intractable conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. But what you may not know is that Mitchell is himself of Lebanese ancestry; his father, John Kilroy, was an Irishman adopted by a Lebanese family, and his mother was a Lebanese Maronite Christian.
More than that, Mitchell had a brief, albeit unsuccessful, run as Middle East envoy during President Bill Clinton's last-minute attempt to broker peace there before he left office. The so-called "Mitchell Commission" studied the conflict in detail for several months before releasing a report in April 2001 to the newly inaugurated Bush administration. (It's recommendations were largely ignored, as indeed was the entire Middle East peace process.)
Advertisement
Advertisement
As with his work in Northern Ireland, Mitchell suggested in the 2001 report (available here) that no peace could come to the Middle East until both sides stopped the violence and steeled themselves for difficult negotiations. Beyond that, though, he affected a more balanced approach to the peace process, calling not only for the Palestinians to renounce terrorism, but for the Israelis to cease using economic blockades against the Palestinians and to halt the construction of new settlements in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
Mitchell, 75, has been in the private sector for the bulk of the Bush years, serving as CEO of the Walt Disney Company and, more recently, as chairman of the international law firm DLA Piper. According to this morning's New York Times, Mitchell's installment as Middle East envoy could sideline incoming Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who would have less influence over the negotiations with such an eminent, proven peacemaker facilitating the process. But, says the Times, Mitchell "would be seen by both sides as a tougher but more balanced negotiator than recent envoys." The Israelis, therefore, are likely skeptical of his appointment, fearing that he may not be as sympathetic to their cause as his predecessors. As Aaron David Miller, an expert at the Woodrow Wilson Center, told the Times, Mitchell's appointment could indicate "that Obama is going to free himself of the exclusive relationship that we've had with the Israelis... This is the clearest indication to me that they're trying to inject more balance into the Israeli-US relationship."
Comments
Still more Beltway Insiders being recycled by the "New" administration.
How original.
I was sort of hoping to see some new faces with some new ideas behind them.
Instead, I keep seeing a new shine being put on the same old loafers.
Bruce, who are we kidding, or attempting to kid, by repeating this kind of nonsense?
As Aaron David Miller, an expert at the Woodrow Wilson Center, told the Times, Mitchell's appointment could indicate "that Obama is going to free himself of the exclusive relationship that we've had with the Israelis... This is the clearest indication to me that they're trying to inject more balance into the Israeli-US relationship."
Let's back up a few months and reexamine Barack Obama's speech to AIPAC. Let's see if his comments there are consistent with what Aaron David Miller would like to convince us is shaping up with Mitchell.
"As president I will use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything."
"I will bring to the White House an unshakable commitment to Israel's security. That starts with ensuring Israel's qualitative military advantage, ... I will ensure Israel can defend itself from any threat, from Gaza to Tehran. ..."
There is no greater threat to Israel or peace than Iran. This audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats. And the enemies of Israel should have no doubt that regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder to shoulder in support of Israel's security. ... The Iran regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and ... its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. ... [M]y goal will be to eliminate this threat."
It's clear to me that either:
A - Aaron David Miller is way off-base in his speculation, and Change We Can Believe In = NO Change, as far as M.E. foreign policy is concerned.
or
B - Aaron David Miller is correct in his speculation, and Barack Obama was lying his ass off at AIPAC in order to snare the pro-Israel vote.
Either way, it smells like the same old political dung heap, to me.
It would be more realistic to appoint an envoy to liberate our Congress from the iron grip of the American Israeli Public Affair Committee (AIPAC). Regardless of what recommendations George Mitchell will come up with, our Congress will block them unless the Israelis tell them not to. It is not an exaggeration to state that the Israelis have more leverage on our Congress than Obama or the American People. The cycle of control by AIPAC on financing our congressional elections has to be broken; otherwise we will be busy fighting Israeli wars in Middle East for generations to come.
Near term peace is easy in the Israel/Pal conflict. Stop forcing Hamas to say something both they and the Palestinian people don't believe in, which is that Israel has a right to exist. It's a very stupid sticking point. The other thing to do is stop blockading Gaza and Hamas. Long term, Israel needs to fess up to its crimes and its illegitimacy, and then peace will be possible.
"fearing that he may not be as sympathetic to their cause as his predecessors". Who would be sympathetic with the war crimes by the Israelis? Clearly their bombing Thursday of UN and Red Crescent warehouses indicates an accelerating effort to starve the Palestinians to into surrender, meaning death right now, particularly for the young and old.
Submitted by larry (not verified) on Wed Jan. 21, 2009 6:54 AM PST.
Everybody needs to take a deep breath and relax. Obama is not going to suddenly change the whole body of American foreign policy. He is probably not going to change much at all. Sure it's a feel good moment. The Grey old white men who own and control the US government have allowed a good looking half black guy to steer the boat for a little while, but thats it.
The guy is still giving the treasury to the rich. He is still talking about another EXPEDITIONARY ADVENTURE in Afganistan. He is still supporting Zionist Apartheid in the Middle East.
Get real. What can this guy claim as an original idea? Please name me one thing. When has this guy ever done anything that was not intended to make him more successful personally?
Please name one thing.
So Its nice that we have a President who isn't Caucasian. Michelle is clearly a better dresser than George's Librarian.
But where have we really gained?
You are so brilliant Zach. Gee, the Arabs with their $12 Trillion dollars in reserves (US$) have no influence over Congress. How naive. And Mark, illegitimate? Israel was established by the U.N. And of course, Arafat with his $800 million in Swiss accounts has nothing to do with the corruption of the Arabs and Palestinians and in no way is responsible for their situation. Absurb.
Obama said today, "As part of a lasting ceasefire, Gaza's border crossings should be open to allow the flow of aid and commerce, with an appropriate monitoring regime, with the international and Palestinian Authority participating."
This is a big break from Bush's kowtowing to Israel. Obama's mandate is so big, that the usual suspects(you know who you are) can't stop him.
As Aaron David Miller, an expert at the Woodrow Wilson Center, told the Times, Mitchell's appointment could indicate "that Obama is going to free himself of the exclusive relationship that we've had with the Israelis... This is the clearest indication to me that they're trying to inject more balance into the Israeli-US relationship."
But in an interview over at CFR's website, he follows a similar remark with this:
[...] it's clear to me that they've substituted at this stage process for substance. They have no intention of making major changes in America's approach to the Arab-Israeli issue, because right now, the prospects of any sort of conflict-ending agreement between Israelis and Palenstinians are slim to none.
As he goes on to point out, the game is liable to be over -- and for good -- if/when Palestinians & other Arabs figure out that Obama isn't serious about this. That's why it's puzzling to me that he's plunged into the issue immediately -- particularly with so much on his plate already. I don't understand why he would risk valuable political capital on an issue that seems unlikely to be resolved anytime soon, if at all (and particularly when you refuse to even acknowledge one of the key players, Hamas).
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
