THE PLANK JANUARY 22, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Israel-based journalist Shmuel Rosner has just filed a piece for TNR on why George Mitchell, Obama's Middle East envoy, is the wrong person to send to the Israel-Palestine peace talks. Rosner reviews Mitchell's 2001 report to the Bush administration on the Israel-Palestine conflict to inform how Mitchell will approach the region in the coming days:
While most people will focus on Mitchell's supposed position regarding settlements (and the possibility that such position will make it hard for him not to pick a fight with the most probable next Israeli prime minister, Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu), the Mitchell Report finding that seems much more problematic today is the conclusion that Palestinian violence was not planned by the Palestinian leadership (namely, Yasser Arafat). The report says that "we were provided with no persuasive evidence that the [Ariel] Sharon visit [to Temple Mount in 2000] was anything other than an internal political act; neither were we provided with persuasive evidence that the PA planned the uprising." This was, arguably, the most devastating rebuke of Israel's claims--what most Israelis believe today, and what the Bush administration eventually came to believe --that Arafat wanted, initiated, planned, and executed this terror campaign.
This was typical Mitchell. Rejecting the narrative of both sides--Mitchell did not accept Palestinians' claims that Sharon's "provocation" was the cause for violence either--in the hope that a third, "balanced" version, can be swallowed, if not enthusiastically, by the parties. There's reason to assume that in style, if not in substance, Mitchell will not change this approach and will try to find a middle ground, earning some praise and some rebuke for his actions.
6 comments
Obviously The New Republic has no inention of abandoning its fossilized ideology on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Personally, I have a hard time taking anything Shmuel Rosner seriously after watching the blogginheads segment where Daniel Levy cleaned his clock:
bloggingheads.tv/.../9972
- ndmackenzie
January 22, 2009 at 5:12pm
Sometimes an even-handed envoy is not what is required to advance certain diplomatic goals. While not endorsing all of Israel's actions, I contend that it is beyond refutation that the Hamasian militants brought death and destruction upon themselves and are responsible for said death and destruction. There is no neutral ground between Ehud Olmert and Khaled Meshaal.
- liberal reformer
January 22, 2009 at 5:14pm
The man hasn't said anything about Hamas yet. Chill out, everyone, and let him come to his own conclusions in his patient, scrupulous, diligent way. He might surprise you, just as his boss is surprising everyone.
- teplukhin2you
January 22, 2009 at 5:30pm
-- I contend that it is beyond refutation that the Hamasian militants brought death and destruction upon themselves and are responsible for said death and destruction.
I wonder if people who repeat this rubbish would still repeat it if Israel killed six million Palestinians.
- ndmackenzie
January 22, 2009 at 5:33pm
Ndmackenzie: You are the bearer of rubbish. So I suppose that you would tolerate me firing rockets at the Sderot of your backyard without retaliation? Yeah, sure, tell me another one. Israel has been struck repeatedly by rockets, has attempted to avoid civilian casualties (all civilian deaths cannot be avoided when cretinous militants stockpile arms and launch missiles from heavily populated areas) and you compare Operation Cast Lead to the Holocaust? What kind of fool are you? Thought experiment: If Israel pulled these same stunts would you be supportive? To ask that question is to answer it.
- liberal reformer
January 22, 2009 at 6:38pm
"just as his boss is surprising everyone."
He's not surprising everyone. YOU are not "everyone."
Sheesh!
- WoodyBombay
January 22, 2009 at 7:41pm