> The expected appointment of a special envoy to breathe new life into
> Israeli-Palestinian negotiations could split the pro-Israel center
> while pleasing the Jewish left and outraging the right. The schism
> could be particularly deep if, as was widely reported this week,
> President Barack Obama appoints former Sen. George Mitchell to the
> job.
>
No, not really. Mitchell is just like Obama, a guy who identifies the precise midpoint of the political spectrum and occupies it. He will do whatever Obama wants him to do. His appointment means Obama is serious about doing "something" (otherwise Mitchell wouldn't have signed up) but other than that it means literally nothing, except that it's a signal that Obama doesn't want to signal anything at all right now. The "pro-Israel center" that will supposedly be split over the appointment is made up of Abe Foxman and the Daily News crowd - i.e., hysterical American Zionists. The "right-leaning" Jewish group the piece mentions as being wary of Mitchell is Mort Klein's ZOA, which is like the John Birch Society of the Jewish groups, the extreme of the extreme. Mitchell's 2001 report was supposed to be a road map to get to a peace agreement, Bush fully embraced it (rhetorically) - and then things went on exactly as before and here we are 12 years later.
On the other hand, the Europeans are taking the lead now on negotiations. That's a good sign because it almost certainly means they got permission to do so from Obama. A few years ago I was writing about US policy on Hamas, etc., and I thought: Okay, US policy is awful. But realistically, given the strangling domestic political constraints, if I was advising a president of moderate goodwill on what to do, what would I advise? And the best answer I could come up with was to secretly encourage the Europeans to do all the things I wish the US could do. When the crazies and their paid retainers in Congress screamed about it, I'd officially make verbal noises about how the US disapproves what the Euros are doing, while continuing to encourage them in private. This wouldn't remain secret for long, of course, but in the end it would be impossible for the domestic opponents to do anything about it. What are they going to demand, that we impose sanctions on the UK?
SA