At Last, an Honest Broker

Hopefully, George Mitchell's tenure as special envoy to the Middle East will turn out to be a case of what Yogi Berra would call, "deja vu all over again." Specifically, we could use a repeat of May 9, 2007, which was the highlight of Mitchell's career thus far.

That was the day that the conflict over Northern Ireland, which began in the twelfth century (and in which 3,500 people had been killed since 1966) ended. It was the day when Protestant leader Reverend Ian Paisley joined former senior IRA commander Martin McGuiness in a power-sharing Catholic-Protestant unity government.

It was a day, in the words of the BBC, "of such improbability that it sets a new benchmark against which the future will judge unlikely events still to come"--like an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

For a time it appeared that Israelis and Palestinians would end their conflict before Irish Catholics and Protestants. It was in 1993 that Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO leader Yasir Arafat signed the Oslo Agreement on the White House lawn.

But then Rabin was assassinated in 1995 by an Israeli terrorist and, just as the killer intended, Oslo died shortly after its Israeli sponsor. After Rabin's murder, neither Israelis nor Palestinians fully observed the agreement (although it still succeeded in dramatically reducing the violence).

The Irish equivalent of Oslo was the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 which created the framework for peace by establishing a power-sharing arrangement between Protestants and Catholics. The ancient enemies would serve side-by-side in the same government, settling disputes through politics not violence.

Like Oslo, the Good Friday Agreement hit snag after snag, with both sides caught violating its terms. Just two months after it was signed, 29 people were killed and 200 injured in an attack by an IRA splinter group in the city of Omagh--an action designed to scuttle the peace process. But none of the major players on either side were assassinated, as Rabin was, and each setback was followed by intensive efforts to resuscitate the agreement.

This last point marks a striking difference with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Protestants and Catholics never stopped negotiating following an act of violence. Israelis and Palestinians invariably use acts of violence as a pretext to stop negotiating; never seeming to grasp--or not caring--that by doing so they were giving the terrorists on both sides a veto on the peace process.

Another difference worth noting is that while Oslo was signed by moderates in the Israeli and Palestinian camps, the Irish peacemakers were hard-liners known for their intense animosity toward the other side.

In an article about successful mediation that he wrote with Richard Haass in 2007, Mitchell said: "Including in the political process those previously associated with violent groups can actually help. Sometimes it's hard to stop a war if you don't talk with those who are involved in it. To be sure, their participation will likely slow things down and, for a time, block progress. But their endorsement can give the process and its outcome far greater legitimacy and support. Better they become participants than act as spoilers."

That is how it worked in Northern Ireland. Both sides were represented by hardliners; fanatics in fact.

Protestant Paisley had famously said, "If an IRA man comes to a Protestant home and my men are there they will kill that IRA man. Yes sir." Catholic McGuiness once said, "I am prepared to go to jail. I would rather die than disrupt or destroy my code of honor to the IRA."

The gaps that divided Irish Catholics and Protestants were every bit as wide as those dividing Israelis and Palestinians. Like Israelis and Palestinians, the two sides were fighting over one piece of land (although the Northern Irish could not simply divide it between them as Israelis and Palestinians can). The religious animosity was as intense as that between Jews and Muslims. And the 800-year old Irish conflict was some 700 years more ancient than the 100-year old Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

So why did the Good Friday Agreement succeed while Oslo collapsed?

Perhaps the most significant reason was the perseverance of one critical outsider: George Mitchell. Mitchell became involved when British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who had invested heavily in the success of the Irish negotiations, asked President Bill Clinton for help in bridging differences between the two sides.

Blair believed that the American president--unlike a British prime minister--could be the honest broker both sides would trust. Clinton agreed and appointed former Senate Majority Leader Mitchell as his special envoy. He expressed full confidence in him and sent word not only that Mitchell would speak for him but that, when called upon by Mitchell, he would himself use his powerful persuasive abilities to push for an agreement.

With Clinton's full backing, Mitchell had the authority he needed to get the job done. Mitchell was as tough as he was even-handed (he was neither in the Catholic or Protestant camp, just as he is neither in the Palestinian or Israeli camps). And he was indefatigable, involving himself whenever he was needed, whatever the issue.

In that same article about successful mediation, he stated that "peace never just happens; it is made, issue by issue, point by point." But, he warned, "in order to get negotiations launched, preconditions ought to be kept to an absolute minimum. . . . Confidence needs to be built before more ambitious steps can be taken. Front-loading a negotiation with demanding conditions all but assures that negotiations will not get under way, much less succeed."

Mitchell also wrote that he believed that there should be a price paid by whichever side dodges commitments it has made to the other side or to the mediator (i.e., the United States).

"Sanctions should be introduced when there is backsliding. In the case of Northern Ireland, it meant public criticism, stopping diplomatic contacts, the suspension of local institutions. There must be a clear price to be paid for unacceptable actions," he wrote.

These specific sanctions are not fully applicable to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but the point remains. For the last eight years, Israelis and Palestinians have made commitments that neither has lived up to. Although the Bush administration had no hesitation pointing to Palestinian non-compliance, it almost never called on Israel to live up to its commitments (think of the oft-promised settlements freeze).

Moreover, U.S. envoys to the region--including Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice--never had full presidential backing for their efforts and were repeatedly undermined by Elliot Abrams and other White House neoconservatives.

As a result, the United States lost its credibility as an honest broker and, as George W. Bush's term ended, the conflict was infinitely farther from resolution than it was when Bill Clinton left the White House.

That is about to change. Mitchell's appointment is the proof.

President Obama would not have appointed George Mitchell unless he intended to push the process to a successful conclusion. Nor would he have made the appointment in the presence of the vice president, secretary of state, and the assembled staff of the State Department.

As for Mitchell, it is safe to assume that he would not have taken the job if he did not know that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would fully back his efforts, without regard to the supposed political constraints on disinterested mediation. After all, Mitchell is going down in history as the man who brought peace to Ireland. It is inconceivable that he would choose to follow that success with failure in the Middle East.

As for Barack Obama, he promised to begin the serious pursuit of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement during his first year in office. He's well ahead of schedule. He appointed and tasked George Mitchell as special envoy on his second full day in office.

Obama wasn't exaggerating. He is indeed "fired up, ready to go." Also ready to go, and now almost sure to go, is the ugly, pointless, and horrifically bloody Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the words of the song Michelle and Barack Obama danced to at ten inaugural balls on Tuesday night: "At Last."

MJ Rosenberg is the Director of Israel Policy Forum's Washington Policy Center.

Comments

[robeson]

The upcoming Israeli election will probably have more impact on the prospects for peace than Mitchell's appointment and skills. Most negotiators and politicians believe a two state solution is the only way out. Netanyahu is against the two-state solution while Livni is pro two states. Where will Israel go in the election?

[batguano]

Thanks for this well reasoned piece; I only hope your suppositions, optimism and conclusions are correct. The whole world desperately needs and end to this "conflict" and we must empower the voices for a just and lasting peace on both sides, who have been marginilized by the extremists on both sides. The reality of an "honest broker" with enough clout, influence and power to effect change and reward progress while exposing and punishing efforts to thwart progress is something I think most in the conflict look foward to. May it be so.

Without a swift end to this madness the whole world may regret not being more insistant on a just solution and an end to violence as a substitute for peace.

[GingerB]

This massacre has GOT TO STOP! People, imagine these were YOUR sons. We've got to find a way to peace for our children and grandchildren. PLEASE, write the media, write your legislators, do SOMETHING to stop this insanity and DEMAND it stop NOW.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2009/jan/21/gaza-israelandthepalestinians

[DC]

There will be peace only when it servers the interest of both parties. Israel would have to make compromises much of the population will refuse -- give up of the illegal settlements, sharing of Jerusalem, return to the 67 borders. On going strife and assaults (supported by the arms industry and Uncle Sam) and sporadic attacks on Israelis citizens are a price worth paying before accepting THAT.

So where is the motivation for Israel to accept peace? Why should Israel accept that? There is too much to loose. The price is too high.

As for the Palestinians? They are caught between their own poor and repressive leadership and the repression of their occupiers and controllers.

What can they give Israel for peace? Nothing really. A stop in the violence and attacks?

Israel is willing to live with that and contain it best they can in the belief that at some point all Palestinians will go away or be completely conquered.

If the US were stop military support for Israel, there could be a motivation for peace. If it made economic sense for Israel. But it does not. So this will not happen. The industry is too big. Just read the Obama policy on planed missile development with Israel.

As for the peace in N. Ireland. There were many invisible people behind the scenes, private people (i.e. Charles Feeney) who were instrumental and motivated to make that happen. There is more economic interest in keeping the Israeli/Palestinian conflict going.

[bbrecht]

Well according to wisdom garnered from Ireland-- the US should sanction Israel, as it has Hamas. And both parties should be welcomed to the table. Otherwise, it's just more phony posturing.

[melpol]

Mitchell brings only hope not a solution to peace. He is only a political hack that got lucky in Ireland and should be ignored. Israel alone understands its course for survival and must continue fighting mini-wars. It is suicidal for Israel to emulate Roosevelt and Churchill's call for unconditional victory. That victory would encompass the impossible destruction of over a billion Jew hating Muslims. Anti-Jewish supporters want to goad Israel into that final battle of self destruction. The only recourse tiny Israel has is to fight mini-wars and pray that they do not expand into larger ones. Mitchell will go home empty handed and get a more useful job.

[bbrecht]

Wow-- what a freaky and twisted way to view the world. Mini-wars? I guess you mean like the recent war in Gaza which left 1300 dead. Count us out, fella.

[jhamm1]

Now, I see what Hillary was referring to by "smart power", with herself encompassing the "power" and Mitchell the smarts. Perhaps a collaboration of her brawn and his brains might be able to accomplish something afterall.

[LProyect]

Considering the fact that MJ Rosenberg used to be on the payroll of AIPAC, I'd take this article with a wheelbarrow full of salt. Obama has no essential differences with Bush over Palestine despite the specious arguments put forward here. He supports Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Abbas's efforts to crush Hamas. Peace for Obama will be the peace of the graveyard, I am afraid.

[mcantwell]

Thank You for this very informative article.

[Virginia Plain]

Excellent article.

George Mitchell (and General John de Chastelaine) gave everything to broker peace in Northern Ireland. These men were trusted by both "sides" in the conflict , and their contribution to the peace we now enjoy was major.

The bomb here in Omagh ( a market town of 30,000 people) was the last straw in over 30 years of bloodshed and bitterness. The bomb not only killed 29 people (inluding one of my family,children and teenagers), it also killed twins who were only 2 weeks from being born.

To those who say we do not have peace because Northen Ireland is still a part of the United Kingdom, I say to be able to wake up in the morning and not be afraid to turn on the radio for fear of hearing about more bombs, more killing - is peace indeed. To see sworn enemies sitting together in government (albeit sometimes still arguing) - is peace indeed. To be able to travel in your car and not have to worry about it being hijacked, or you being stopped and searched - is peace indeed.

I wish Mr. Mitchell (and everyone involved in trying to bring peace to the Middle East) the very best of luck. The world is currently suffering a financial crisis but any part of the world that knows peace, is rich indeed. We have peace here at last, and I for one, will be ever grateful to Mr. Mitchell for the role he played in bringing

[rodporte]

In May 2004 George Mitchell spoke at his 50th reunion at Bowdoin College. He recalled some of his life experiences and, largely in response to question people asked, he also talked about negotiating. Although he would not directly criticize the Arab-Israeli negotiations that the State Department was conducting at the time, he made it clear that he did not think the Bush administration was willing to do the difficult hard work that would be required to get lasting results. The negotiations about Norther Ireland had taken years of sustained, committed attention consuming work. Were President Bush or those who worked for him willing to do that--grind it out, as it were? .He did not use the term lazy, but, well, you know.... Mitchell believed that it was most important to first establish things all people and countries involved had in common. He said that nearly everyone there was a parent or grandparent, so the first thing they talked about was grandkids. And went on from there.

[ENDtheGENOCIDE]

I pray that you are right and we can put this sad chapter in humanity to rest. I have lost my hope in Obama (aka Bush, Jr.), but you have given me renewed hope in Mitchell.

[Woodley56]

Bush, Jr?

That's completely asinine.

[disgusted48]

and you have come to this conclusion 3 1/2 days after Obama's took office.

[boyo1872]

ENDtheGENOCIDE??? YOU'RE KIDDING RIGHT..HOW IS THIS A GENOCIDE?? EXPLAIN...

[JoeDoorman]

The main reason peace was achieved in NI was when Bill Clinton let Gerry Adams into the US. This one move changed eveything, it legitimized the IRA and though the British were against it, they had to deal with it, and with Adams. The taboo was lifted.
When Hamas won the election I believe peace could finally come to the ME. Abbas was a joke, he had been around for a while and got nothing. Of corse when Hamas won the election, Abass was brought out of obscurity and became the puppet once again. If the Israelis truley want peace its going to be through Hamas not Abbas. But I'm afraid after "cast lead" the only thing Hamas is thinking now is revenge. Bush & Co. and the Israeli hard liners miss their chance with Hamas, but I'm sure they don't see it that way. Too bad.

[Discipulus04]

So long as AIPAC calls the shots there will be no real substantive progress in the Middle East Peace Process

[Taxi]

Yes another 'Middle East Piece'.

There's gonna be some ugly dancing going on in AIPAC land.

[Articulator]

"in order to get negotiations launched, preconditions ought to be kept to an absolute minimum. . . . Front-loading a negotiation with demanding conditions all but assures that negotiations will not get under way, much less succeed."

From some one with a record of success. Change I hope we can live with. I'm all for giving it a shot.

How many people out there think that if the Bush administration could have stayed in power indefinitely that there would eventually be peace in the middle east? (I'm not raising my hand.)