Read Rob Farley and this news analysis to get a sense of the current conditions in Gaza: Political situation unclear, Hamas' forces still at large and seeking to assert political control over the strip. Meanwhile, their support from Palestinian civilians is in flux following Israel's assault. Some civillians seem to be blaming Hamas for the massive damage to Gaza, while others continue to identify with the resistance movement. But the question of what comes next, from the U.S. point of view, developed an interesting wrinkle today as reports that former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, who was instrumental in Northern Ireland's peace negotiations in the 1990s and has worked on Middle East issues before, may be tapped as the new administration's Middle East peace envoy.
Mr. Mitchell, 75, was appointed in 2000, in the waning days of the Clinton administration, to lead an international commission to investigate the causes of violence in the Middle East. He released a report in the spring of 2001, during the early days of the Bush administration, that called for a freeze on Israeli settlements in the West Bank and a Palestinian crackdown on terrorism.
Other Middle East specialists said Sunday that if Mr. Mitchell was named to the job, he would be seen by both sides as a tougher but more balanced negotiator than recent envoys, which could make some Israelis nervous. Mr. Mitchell has Lebanese as well as Irish roots: his father, Joseph Kilroy, was an orphan adopted by a Lebanese family whose Arabic name had been anglicized to Mitchell, and Mr. Mitchell was raised a Maronite Catholic by his Lebanese mother.
The appointment of Mr. Mitchell would be a strong suggestion “that Obama is going to free himself of the exclusive relationship that we've had with the Israelis,” said Aaron David Miller, a public policy analyst at the Woodrow Wilson International Center.
“This is the clearest indication to me that they're trying to inject more balance into the Israeli-U.S. relationship,” he said.
Very interesting. Also note that Miller, the analyst quoted above, has been saying some very intersting things about what the new administration should do, as in this interview with Eyal Press on Ta-Nehisi Coates' blog:
"The first thing Obama has to do is ask himself a question," he said, "and if he doesn't answer it correctly you might as well hang a 'close-for-season' sign on the door. The question is: do you, Mr. President, believe the Arab-Israeli conflict is a core national priority for your administration? Not an interest, not a serious issue, but a core national priority."
If the answer is yes, Miller went on to say, a lot will have to change, starting with the pattern of the US pretending to be an "honest broker" while actually serving as "Israel's lawyer." "Effective brokers reach agreements that reflect a balance of interests," he said. In practical terms, this would mean pushing for a truce in Gaza with provisions that benefit both sides: for Israel, an end to Hamas' rocket fire and a mechanism for monitoring weapons smuggling; for the Gazans, an opening of the crossing points and lifting of the economic blockade (Miller thinks working this out will take months, even if a temporary ceasefire is reached soon). It would mean breaking the twenty-five year pattern he witnessed on settlements. "We've raised the settlement issue plenty [in the past], we've said it's bad," Miller said, "but 'serious' means why are you doing this? Give me a transparent accounting of what you're doing, because I'm not sure even you understand how vast and expansive the settlement project has become." And what if nothing changes? Instead of cutting off aid, which he views as neither warranted nor politically feasible, Miller favors "taking away our auspices" - that is, Obama telling the next Israeli Prime Minister "I am not going to say Israel is committed to peace when you are doing something on the ground which prejudges the disposition of the land you claim to be willing to give away." He believes not even Benjamin Netanyahu would be able to explain to Israelis why, at this price, expanding settlements should continue.
The difference between being Israel's lawyer and an honest broker seems to be the critical distinction faced by the new administration. Moving from the former to the latter does not mean giving up U.S. support for Israel's existance; it means creating a mechanism where the state's survival is a viable proposition.
-- Tim Fernholz
