Mitchell’s new challenge

By Ewen MacAskill

GEORGE Mitchell has long been one of the few who believe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be resolved. “Conflicts are created and conducted by human beings,” he said in a speech last month. “They can be ended by human beings.”It sounded naive, especially in Washington where the prevailing mood among current and former diplomats is one of extreme scepticism, given Israel’s Gaza assault and the Israeli election next month that could see the hawkish Binyamin Netanyahu take office.But Mitchell helped resolve the Northern Ireland conflict that seemed equally intractable at the time. He has a doggedness, a willingness to keep going day after day, whatever the setbacks.Tony Blair’s former chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, who worked closely with Mitchell on the Northern Ireland peace process, said on Tuesday: “He is the most patient man I have ever come across in my life. He will just keep going whatever the insults, whatever the pressures, until he gets an agreement.”Mitchell is not new to the Middle East. After Northern Ireland, Bill Clinton sent him to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza to produce a report on the origins of the 2000 Palestinian uprising and how to resolve the conflict.He recommended Israel lift restrictions preventing Palestinians expanding their economy, in the hope that job creation might marginalise militants. He combined this with a call for a freeze on Jewish settlements in the West Bank, a proposal which could see early friction between the US and Israel if Netanyahu, who advocates settlement expansion, is elected.Mitchell also called for the Palestinians to build up their security forces to crack down on militant groups such as Hamas, in order to offer Israel the prospect of prolonged peace. But that proposal is infinitely more difficult to achieve now than when Mitchell first proposed it. Hamas has since taken over control of Gaza and the Palestinians are divided between Hamas and Fatah, the ruling group on the West Bank.What gives Mitchell an outside chance is that he is engaged from the start of the Obama administration. Clinton failed to be constant in his search for Middle East peace; George Bush was never truly engaged.Mitchell made this point in an interview in 2007: “Until now, [the Bush] administration efforts have been periodic, inconsistent and anything but persevering. If there is to be success, that has to change. There has to be a strong and clear determination, a perseverance: not in one day and out the next, not one person one day another person next week, not one proposal now and another proposal next year.”What Mitchell is offering is someone who will stay with it day after day, as he did in Northern Ireland.Judith Kipper, of Washington’s Institute of World Affairs, said that Mitchell had the right credentials. What was needed, she said, was for the US to take a lead in introducing or imposing new ideas. About 90 per cent of a peace agreement had been reached at the 2001 Taba talks in 2001. “For the remainder, the US has to introduce ideas for both the Israelis and Palestinians. We are big and they are little. Tough love,” she said.Mitchell is not afraid of speaking to the militants, as he demonstrated in Northern Ireland. Kipper thinks he will have to do the same in the Middle East. “I think this administration will talk to Hamas directly or covertly ... in the next 18 months.” (Mitchell may have already spoken to Hamas on an earlier mission.)“The issue, certainly at this stage is not one of US direct engagement with Hamas, but a recognition — even if undeclared — that Hamas will have to be brought into the process, either in the context of internal Palestinian reconciliation or in their own right,” said Daniel Levy, who worked for the Israeli government on various peace initiatives.— The Guardian, London