Behind Mitchell's headlines
Evelyn Gordon points out that there was more to that Charlie Rose interview with US Special Middle East envoy George Mitchell last week than just the threat to cut off loan guarantees. In fact, the rest of the interview was even worse.“We think the way forward … is full implementation of the Arab peace initiative,” Mitchell declared. “That’s the comprehensive peace in the region that is the objective set forth by the president.”Any of you who still want to believe that the Obama administration is pro-Israel, you're fooling yourselves.The Arab initiative mandates a full Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines — every last inch of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. It also demands a solution to the refugee problem “in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194,” which Arabs interpret as allowing the refugees to “return” to Israel.
Later in the interview, Mitchell says this initiative requires “a negotiation and a discussion,” and that you can’t negotiate by telling “one side you have to agree in advance to what the other side wants.” Yet by saying his goal is “full implementation” of this initiative, he’s effectively saying, “You can have your negotiation and discussion, but Washington has no intention of being an honest broker: it fully backs the Arab position on borders, Jerusalem, and even (to some extent) the refugees.”
This is the administration’s clearest statement yet that it’s abandoning the position held by every previous U.S. administration: that Israel needs “defensible borders” — which everyone agrees the 1967 lines are not. Mitchell also thereby abandoned the position, held by every previous administration, that any deal must acknowledge Israel’s historic ties to the Temple Mount via some Israeli role there, even if only symbolic (see Bill Clinton’s idea of “sovereignty under the Mount”). The Arab initiative requires Israel to just get out.
2 Comments:
I know it is a little late to point this out... but the guy was raised by Lebanese and hardly a neutral representation. Israel is under no obligation to listen to any demands he makes and his qualifications are not there.
Will Israel's government capitulate to the new Mitchell line? Even if it did, Abu Bluff won't return to the table. Its that simple.
Post a Comment
<< Home