A new U.S. role in the Mideast

With signs that a fragile cease-fire between Israel and Hamas could be unraveling, President Obama’s newly appointed envoy George Mitchell began an eight-day tour of the Middle East this week by calling for the truce to be “extended and consolidated.” Mitchell said that while he carried no new policy proposals, his presence signaled the Obama administration’s intention to be vigorously involved in efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “There is no such thing as a conflict that can’t be ended,” said Mitchell, 75, best known for his work in ending Northern Ireland’s civil war. The former senator also served as Bill Clinton’s and George W. Bush’s Middle East envoy.

Hours before Mitchell arrived in Jerusalem from Egypt, Israeli warplanes bombed suspected smuggling tunnels on Egypt’s border with Gaza, in reprisal for the death of an Israeli soldier by a roadside bomb a day earlier. Those incidents followed 10 days of calm after the Jan. 18 cease-fire that halted the Gaza fighting.

Mitchell will find a situation “eerily similar” to the one he left in 2001, said Jackson Diehl in The Washington Post. At the time, “Israeli-Palestinian bloodshed dominated the news, and U.S.-backed talks had broken down.” Against all odds, Mitchell produced a tough report that was endorsed by both sides. But George Bush chose to “disengage,” as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ignored Mitchell’s proposed freeze on Jewish settlements. With Obama’s recommitment to the peace process, let’s hope Mitchell can pick up where he left off.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

Only this time Mitchell also has to deal with two bitterly divided Palestinian factions, said Shmuel Rosner in The New Republic. Any steps he takes to get the West Bank’s Fatah on board will likely alienate Gaza’s radical Hamas, and vice versa. “Will he decide that solving the problem of Gaza is crucial before real progress can be made on other issues, or will he adopt the position that Gaza can be contained while progress is made in the West Bank?” This treacherous balancing act could trip up even the most experienced diplomat.

That’s where Mitchell’s Belfast experience could pay off, said Gabrielle Rifkind in the London Independent. “There were several false starts in Northern Ireland where attempts were made by moderates to engage with one another while excluding the more hard-line voices.” Before Mitchell, the U.K. had refused to hold talks until the IRA disarmed, which doomed negotiations. Mitchell gave extremists a stake in the process, and that led to stability—and peace.