An Arbitrator Steps Down
The resignation of Special Envoy George Mitchell indicates that, for now, no new initiatives for the Middle East are to be expected from the U.S.
The peace broker, U.S. Senator George Mitchell, who had been successful in Ireland and had for two years worked toward peace in the Middle East, threw in the towel this week. Behind the polite, diplomatic formalities stood a clear conclusion: President Obama is not ready to prepare and release his own plan for peace. Without an emphatic commitment from the U.S., there will be no progress in the Middle East, said Mitchell.
But wait. On May 19 Obama is slated to give a Middle East policy speech and, shortly thereafter, a discussion with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who will arrive in Washington Friday. On May 24 Netanyahu will speak before the U.S. Congress. How can Mitchell claim to know, before hearing and seeing all this, that there will be no trustworthy American plan for peace and that he consequently will have lost nothing more in the Middle East?
On Sunday, Obama intends to address AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby in Washington. If he were planning to exert pressure on both sides of the conflict, he certainly would not have chosen the AIPAC conference to do so. Only friendly words and support for Israel are appropriate in this setting. In fact, Obama has no interest, a year and a half before the election, in losing any unconditionally pro-Israel voters, whether militant Jews or Christian fundamentalists.
Netanyahu feels no obligation to make concessions, either. Since the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah celebrated an alleged unification with the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip, Netanyahu can assume that there may no longer be a partner for negotiations on the Palestinian side — after all, Americans liken Hamas to al-Qaida. In addition, the Israeli Prime Minister received an unexpected gift from Ismail Haniyeh: On the eve of Netanyahu’s trip to Washington, the head of Hamas condemned the killing of bin Laden as a crime and described the al-Qaida leader as a martyr and a saint.
The question of whether American Middle East policy might change after Obama’s re-election in no way affects the current conduct of the regional adversaries. Therefore only the Palestinian plan remains: the acknowledgment of a Palestinian state by the United Nations General Assembly in September. That would certainly cause Israel distress, but it would not end the occupation. The foreseeable frustration of the Palestinians after a success in New York would probably provoke their government to lead the population in a new direction for resistance. This time it’s a question of nonviolent resistance, following the example of Gandhi in India.
Israel received a taste of that on May 15, which left the Israelis, in turn, with feelings of trepidation. No one in Israel — and certainly not the government — knows how to react to that kind of resistance. Thus another difficult time awaits the Middle East; it can be expected to end, at the soonest, only after the presidential election in America.
Avi Primor is president of the Israel Council on Foreign Relations and served as Israeli ambassador to Germany.
The peace broker, U.S. Senator George Mitchell, who had been successful in Ireland and had for two years worked toward peace in the Middle East, threw in the towel this week. Behind the polite, diplomatic formalities stood a clear conclusion: President Obama is not ready to prepare and release his own plan for peace. Without an emphatic commitment from the U.S., there will be no progress in the Middle East, said Mitchell.
But wait. On May 19 Obama is slated to give a Middle East policy speech and, shortly thereafter, a discussion with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who will arrive in Washington Friday. On May 24 Netanyahu will speak before the U.S. Congress. How can Mitchell claim to know, before hearing and seeing all this, that there will be no trustworthy American plan for peace and that he consequently will have lost nothing more in the Middle East?
On Sunday, Obama intends to address AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby in Washington. If he were planning to exert pressure on both sides of the conflict, he certainly would not have chosen the AIPAC conference to do so. Only friendly words and support for Israel are appropriate in this setting. In fact, Obama has no interest, a year and a half before the election, in losing any unconditionally pro-Israel voters, whether militant Jews or Christian fundamentalists.
Netanyahu feels no obligation to make concessions, either. Since the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah celebrated an alleged unification with the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip, Netanyahu can assume that there may no longer be a partner for negotiations on the Palestinian side — after all, Americans liken Hamas to al-Qaida. In addition, the Israeli Prime Minister received an unexpected gift from Ismail Haniyeh: On the eve of Netanyahu’s trip to Washington, the head of Hamas condemned the killing of bin Laden as a crime and described the al-Qaida leader as a martyr and a saint.
The question of whether American Middle East policy might change after Obama’s re-election in no way affects the current conduct of the regional adversaries. Therefore only the Palestinian plan remains: the acknowledgment of a Palestinian state by the United Nations General Assembly in September. That would certainly cause Israel distress, but it would not end the occupation. The foreseeable frustration of the Palestinians after a success in New York would probably provoke their government to lead the population in a new direction for resistance. This time it’s a question of nonviolent resistance, following the example of Gandhi in India.
Israel received a taste of that on May 15, which left the Israelis, in turn, with feelings of trepidation. No one in Israel — and certainly not the government — knows how to react to that kind of resistance. Thus another difficult time awaits the Middle East; it can be expected to end, at the soonest, only after the presidential election in America.
Avi Primor is president of the Israel Council on Foreign Relations and served as Israeli ambassador to Germany.