George Mitchell, the US President's Middle East special envoy, has been shuttling back and forth for almost a year now attempting to get something underway [even just talks] in the on-going Palestinian-Israel conflict, let alone having achieved anything at all. He, as Obama, has been trumped at at every turn, principally by Israel's actions, mostly defiant to America's position and in breach of international law.
Stephen Walt, professor of international relations at Harvard - and author of "The Israel Lobby" - in a piece "Time for George Mitchell to reign" on his blog on FP well worth reading for its analysis says it's time for Mitchell to move on:
"Why should Mitchell step down now? Because he is wasting his time. The administration's early commitment to an Israeli-Palestinian peace was either a naïve bit of bravado or a cynical charade, and if Mitchell continues to pile up frequent-flyer miles in a fruitless effort, he will be remembered as one of a long series of U.S. "mediators" who ended up complicit in Israel's self-destructive land grab on the West Bank. Mitchell will turn 77 in August, he has already undergone treatment for prostate cancer, and he's gotten exactly nowhere (or worse) since his mission began. However noble the goal of Israeli-Palestinian peace might be, surely he's got better things to do."
And:
"When Netanyahu dug in his heels and refused a complete settlement freeze -- itself a rather innocuous demand if Israel preferred peace to land -- did Obama describe the settlements as "illegal" and contrary to international law? Of course not. Did he fire a warning shot by instructing the Department of Justice to crack down on tax-deductible contributions to settler organizations? Nope. Did he tell Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to signal his irritation by curtailing U.S. purchases of Israeli arms, downgrading various forms of "strategic cooperation," or canceling a military exchange or two? Not a chance. When Israel continued to evict Palestinians from their homes and announced new settlement construction in East Jerusalem and the West Bank in August, did Obama remind Netanyahu of his dependence on U.S. support by telling U.S. officials to say a few positive things about the Goldstone Report and to use its release as an opportunity to underscore the need for a genuine peace? Hardly; instead, the administration rewarded Netanyau's intransigence by condemning Goldstone and praising Netanyahu for "unprecedented" concessions. (The "concessions," by the way, was an announcement that Israel would freeze settlement expansion in the West Bank "temporarily" while continuing it in East Jerusalem. In other words, they'll just take the land a bit more slowly)."
Meanwhile, over at Salon, Glenn Greenwald writes in "The price of our Middle East policy" that Americans ought to reflect on what has been said by Osama Bin Laden in his latest message to the West, and Obama in particular. Of course there is no gain-saying that violence of the sort engaged in by Bin Laden's followers is deserving of the strongest condemnation and opprobrium. But it is a reflection on the what is said o be underlying thoughts of Bin Laden of their position on the Palestinian conflict, that is deserving of at least discussion - and not just dismissed.
"The connection between our conduct in the Middle East and the motivations for anti-American Terrorism receives far too little attention in general, and -- for reasons Yglesias explains -- the role played by our steadfast support for Israel receives less attention still. It goes without saying that the mere fact that Islamic radicals object to a certain policy (and that policy thus fuels anti-U.S. Terrorism) is not, by itself, a reason to discontinue that policy, but it's certainly a cost that ought to be seriously weighed in deciding whether that policy is wise."
Stephen Walt, professor of international relations at Harvard - and author of "The Israel Lobby" - in a piece "Time for George Mitchell to reign" on his blog on FP well worth reading for its analysis says it's time for Mitchell to move on:
"Why should Mitchell step down now? Because he is wasting his time. The administration's early commitment to an Israeli-Palestinian peace was either a naïve bit of bravado or a cynical charade, and if Mitchell continues to pile up frequent-flyer miles in a fruitless effort, he will be remembered as one of a long series of U.S. "mediators" who ended up complicit in Israel's self-destructive land grab on the West Bank. Mitchell will turn 77 in August, he has already undergone treatment for prostate cancer, and he's gotten exactly nowhere (or worse) since his mission began. However noble the goal of Israeli-Palestinian peace might be, surely he's got better things to do."
And:
"When Netanyahu dug in his heels and refused a complete settlement freeze -- itself a rather innocuous demand if Israel preferred peace to land -- did Obama describe the settlements as "illegal" and contrary to international law? Of course not. Did he fire a warning shot by instructing the Department of Justice to crack down on tax-deductible contributions to settler organizations? Nope. Did he tell Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to signal his irritation by curtailing U.S. purchases of Israeli arms, downgrading various forms of "strategic cooperation," or canceling a military exchange or two? Not a chance. When Israel continued to evict Palestinians from their homes and announced new settlement construction in East Jerusalem and the West Bank in August, did Obama remind Netanyahu of his dependence on U.S. support by telling U.S. officials to say a few positive things about the Goldstone Report and to use its release as an opportunity to underscore the need for a genuine peace? Hardly; instead, the administration rewarded Netanyau's intransigence by condemning Goldstone and praising Netanyahu for "unprecedented" concessions. (The "concessions," by the way, was an announcement that Israel would freeze settlement expansion in the West Bank "temporarily" while continuing it in East Jerusalem. In other words, they'll just take the land a bit more slowly)."
Meanwhile, over at Salon, Glenn Greenwald writes in "The price of our Middle East policy" that Americans ought to reflect on what has been said by Osama Bin Laden in his latest message to the West, and Obama in particular. Of course there is no gain-saying that violence of the sort engaged in by Bin Laden's followers is deserving of the strongest condemnation and opprobrium. But it is a reflection on the what is said o be underlying thoughts of Bin Laden of their position on the Palestinian conflict, that is deserving of at least discussion - and not just dismissed.
"The connection between our conduct in the Middle East and the motivations for anti-American Terrorism receives far too little attention in general, and -- for reasons Yglesias explains -- the role played by our steadfast support for Israel receives less attention still. It goes without saying that the mere fact that Islamic radicals object to a certain policy (and that policy thus fuels anti-U.S. Terrorism) is not, by itself, a reason to discontinue that policy, but it's certainly a cost that ought to be seriously weighed in deciding whether that policy is wise."
Comments