George Mitchell

I'm still uncertain on George Mitchell's chances for anything more than marginal achievement as the new Middle East envoy. The tide of history is against him, but I would prefer to avoid allowing cynicism to throttle my belief that peace is possible. If, by some odd stroke of luck, Mitchell could pull something off, and it lasted (that's the key), it would be a diplomatic coup for Obama and nothing short of it. A regional settlement that returns the Golan to Syria and peace with Israel, pushes for Lebanese political reconciliation, dissuading Iranian nuclear development, and a peaceful transference of power to Iraqi authorities, if that can happen in four years it's hard to overstate the victories they represent. If those goals can be reached, it also might force the authoritarian Gulf and other countries to loosen up a bit if the bogeymen are extinguished. Of course, I don't expect that to be the only arena diplomacy assumes a paramount role.

The LA Times featured a favorable write-up on Mitchell today. I'm impressed with learning about his patience and tenacity, puzzled by the contradiction of two paragraphs:

"Although his mother was Lebanese, Mitchell has not been active in advocacy groups espousing Arab causes. His Senate voting record is considered solidly pro-Israel. He supported foreign aid packages for the Jewish state and regularly voted against sales of U.S. weaponry to Arab countries."

then, an AIPAC official disputed Mitchell's comments maintaining that:
"It bothers me a bit," he said. "The Israelis have shown that they're the good guys. And the people they're being asked to make peace with are usually the bad guys, with a couple of exceptions."

In other words, I don't know what to expect.
GM