US presidential envoy George Mitchell is touring the region searching for signs of progress to report back to his boss and to move the peace process forward.
President Barack Obama and his aides have repeated over and over his support for the two-state solution, while the new Israeli government has refused to publicly support the Annapolis process and can't bring itself to use the three words: two-state solution. Obama also wants some quick confidence-building measures. One practical, short-term measure could be carried out quickly by the Israeli Defense Ministry without requiring any immediate political concessions. As Mitchell sets up his new office in Jerusalem with Keith Dayton as his security deputy and David Halle as his deputy for the peace talks, opening up the movement of goods and people from Gaza to the West Bank and back is something doable.
The traditional US diplomatic approach has been to impress on the process part of the "peace process." On the other hand, the often repeated Arab position is that the US can press Israel to amend its policies, either through cutting off aid or cutting off political protection (in other words abstaining rather than vetoing in the Security Council) or both.
Obama's impressive signals since day one in office (calling Arab leaders before European allies, appointing Mitchell and speaking on Al Arabiya TV) reflect a different approach than what has traditionally come out of Washington. In the last 30 years, US administrations have usually become deeply interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict in the last year of a two-term administration. So the process-only approach doesn't appear to be the thinking of the Obama administration.
On the other hand, it is not clear whether Washington has the stomach for a major confrontation with the new Israeli government. While leaks coming out of the White House say that the administration is preparing for such a possibility, few observers believe that this will be how things will in fact turn out.
ALTHOUGH THE main issue of difference at present is over the shape of any final outcome (two state or not), the more likely point of friction will most likely be issues that are taking place on the ground. A study of the Mitchell report (which was produced during the greatly pro-Israel Bush administration) points to settlements as the next point of confrontation. On this issue Mitchell and the US administration have been very clear even though they have not been effective. A freeze of all settlement activity which includes expansion and natural growth will certainly be the center of the focus for Mitchell and his team on the ground.
US presidential envoy George Mitchell is touring the region searching for signs of progress to report back to his boss and to move the peace process forward.
Palestinian children hold candles during a demonstration in Gaza City last week. Photo: AP
President Barack Obama and his aides have repeated over and over his support for the two-state solution, while the new Israeli government has refused to publicly support the Annapolis process and can't bring itself to use the three words: two-state solution. Obama also wants some quick confidence-building measures. One practical, short-term measure could be carried out quickly by the Israeli Defense Ministry without requiring any immediate political concessions. As Mitchell sets up his new office in Jerusalem with Keith Dayton as his security deputy and David Halle as his deputy for the peace talks, opening up the movement of goods and people from Gaza to the West Bank and back is something doable.
The traditional US diplomatic approach has been to impress on the process part of the "peace process." On the other hand, the often repeated Arab position is that the US can press Israel to amend its policies, either through cutting off aid or cutting off political protection (in other words abstaining rather than vetoing in the Security Council) or both.
Obama's impressive signals since day one in office (calling Arab leaders before European allies, appointing Mitchell and speaking on Al Arabiya TV) reflect a different approach than what has traditionally come out of Washington. In the last 30 years, US administrations have usually become deeply interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict in the last year of a two-term administration. So the process-only approach doesn't appear to be the thinking of the Obama administration.
On the other hand, it is not clear whether Washington has the stomach for a major confrontation with the new Israeli government. While leaks coming out of the White House say that the administration is preparing for such a possibility, few observers believe that this will be how things will in fact turn out.
ALTHOUGH THE main issue of difference at present is over the shape of any final outcome (two state or not), the more likely point of friction will most likely be issues that are taking place on the ground. A study of the Mitchell report (which was produced during the greatly pro-Israel Bush administration) points to settlements as the next point of confrontation. On this issue Mitchell and the US administration have been very clear even though they have not been effective. A freeze of all settlement activity which includes expansion and natural growth will certainly be the center of the focus for Mitchell and his team on the ground.
US presidential envoy George Mitchell is touring the region searching for signs of progress to report back to his boss and to move the peace process forward.
Palestinian children hold candles during a demonstration in Gaza City last week. Photo: AP
President Barack Obama and his aides have repeated over and over his support for the two-state solution, while the new Israeli government has refused to publicly support the Annapolis process and can't bring itself to use the three words: two-state solution. Obama also wants some quick confidence-building measures. One practical, short-term measure could be carried out quickly by the Israeli Defense Ministry without requiring any immediate political concessions. As Mitchell sets up his new office in Jerusalem with Keith Dayton as his security deputy and David Halle as his deputy for the peace talks, opening up the movement of goods and people from Gaza to the West Bank and back is something doable.
The traditional US diplomatic approach has been to impress on the process part of the "peace process." On the other hand, the often repeated Arab position is that the US can press Israel to amend its policies, either through cutting off aid or cutting off political protection (in other words abstaining rather than vetoing in the Security Council) or both.
Obama's impressive signals since day one in office (calling Arab leaders before European allies, appointing Mitchell and speaking on Al Arabiya TV) reflect a different approach than what has traditionally come out of Washington. In the last 30 years, US administrations have usually become deeply interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict in the last year of a two-term administration. So the process-only approach doesn't appear to be the thinking of the Obama administration.
On the other hand, it is not clear whether Washington has the stomach for a major confrontation with the new Israeli government. While leaks coming out of the White House say that the administration is preparing for such a possibility, few observers believe that this will be how things will in fact turn out.
ALTHOUGH THE main issue of difference at present is over the shape of any final outcome (two state or not), the more likely point of friction will most likely be issues that are taking place on the ground. A study of the Mitchell report (which was produced during the greatly pro-Israel Bush administration) points to settlements as the next point of confrontation. On this issue Mitchell and the US administration have been very clear even though they have not been effective. A freeze of all settlement activity which includes expansion and natural growth will certainly be the center of the focus for Mitchell and his team on the ground.
US presidential envoy George Mitchell is touring the region searching for signs of progress to report back to his boss and to move the peace process forward.
Palestinian children hold candles during a demonstration in Gaza City last week. Photo: AP
President Barack Obama and his aides have repeated over and over his support for the two-state solution, while the new Israeli government has refused to publicly support the Annapolis process and can't bring itself to use the three words: two-state solution. Obama also wants some quick confidence-building measures. One practical, short-term measure could be carried out quickly by the Israeli Defense Ministry without requiring any immediate political concessions. As Mitchell sets up his new office in Jerusalem with Keith Dayton as his security deputy and David Halle as his deputy for the peace talks, opening up the movement of goods and people from Gaza to the West Bank and back is something doable.
The traditional US diplomatic approach has been to impress on the process part of the "peace process." On the other hand, the often repeated Arab position is that the US can press Israel to amend its policies, either through cutting off aid or cutting off political protection (in other words abstaining rather than vetoing in the Security Council) or both.
Obama's impressive signals since day one in office (calling Arab leaders before European allies, appointing Mitchell and speaking on Al Arabiya TV) reflect a different approach than what has traditionally come out of Washington. In the last 30 years, US administrations have usually become deeply interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict in the last year of a two-term administration. So the process-only approach doesn't appear to be the thinking of the Obama administration.
On the other hand, it is not clear whether Washington has the stomach for a major confrontation with the new Israeli government. While leaks coming out of the White House say that the administration is preparing for such a possibility, few observers believe that this will be how things will in fact turn out.
ALTHOUGH THE main issue of difference at present is over the shape of any final outcome (two state or not), the more likely point of friction will most likely be issues that are taking place on the ground. A study of the Mitchell report (which was produced during the greatly pro-Israel Bush administration) points to settlements as the next point of confrontation. On this issue Mitchell and the US administration have been very clear even though they have not been effective. A freeze of all settlement activity which includes expansion and natural growth will certainly be the center of the focus for Mitchell and his team on the ground.
US presidential envoy George Mitchell is touring the region searching for signs of progress to report back to his boss and to move the peace process forward.
Palestinian children hold candles during a demonstration in Gaza City last week. Photo: AP
President Barack Obama and his aides have repeated over and over his support for the two-state solution, while the new Israeli government has refused to publicly support the Annapolis process and can't bring itself to use the three words: two-state solution. Obama also wants some quick confidence-building measures. One practical, short-term measure could be carried out quickly by the Israeli Defense Ministry without requiring any immediate political concessions. As Mitchell sets up his new office in Jerusalem with Keith Dayton as his security deputy and David Halle as his deputy for the peace talks, opening up the movement of goods and people from Gaza to the West Bank and back is something doable.
The traditional US diplomatic approach has been to impress on the process part of the "peace process." On the other hand, the often repeated Arab position is that the US can press Israel to amend its policies, either through cutting off aid or cutting off political protection (in other words abstaining rather than vetoing in the Security Council) or both.
Obama's impressive signals since day one in office (calling Arab leaders before European allies, appointing Mitchell and speaking on Al Arabiya TV) reflect a different approach than what has traditionally come out of Washington. In the last 30 years, US administrations have usually become deeply interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict in the last year of a two-term administration. So the process-only approach doesn't appear to be the thinking of the Obama administration.
On the other hand, it is not clear whether Washington has the stomach for a major confrontation with the new Israeli government. While leaks coming out of the White House say that the administration is preparing for such a possibility, few observers believe that this will be how things will in fact turn out.
ALTHOUGH THE main issue of difference at present is over the shape of any final outcome (two state or not), the more likely point of friction will most likely be issues that are taking place on the ground. A study of the Mitchell report (which was produced during the greatly pro-Israel Bush administration) points to settlements as the next point of confrontation. On this issue Mitchell and the US administration have been very clear even though they have not been effective. A freeze of all settlement activity which includes expansion and natural growth will certainly be the center of the focus for Mitchell and his team on the ground.
US presidential envoy George Mitchell is touring the region searching for signs of progress to report back to his boss and to move the peace process forward.
Palestinian children hold candles during a demonstration in Gaza City last week. Photo: AP
President Barack Obama and his aides have repeated over and over his support for the two-state solution, while the new Israeli government has refused to publicly support the Annapolis process and can't bring itself to use the three words: two-state solution. Obama also wants some quick confidence-building measures. One practical, short-term measure could be carried out quickly by the Israeli Defense Ministry without requiring any immediate political concessions. As Mitchell sets up his new office in Jerusalem with Keith Dayton as his security deputy and David Halle as his deputy for the peace talks, opening up the movement of goods and people from Gaza to the West Bank and back is something doable.
The traditional US diplomatic approach has been to impress on the process part of the "peace process." On the other hand, the often repeated Arab position is that the US can press Israel to amend its policies, either through cutting off aid or cutting off political protection (in other words abstaining rather than vetoing in the Security Council) or both.
Obama's impressive signals since day one in office (calling Arab leaders before European allies, appointing Mitchell and speaking on Al Arabiya TV) reflect a different approach than what has traditionally come out of Washington. In the last 30 years, US administrations have usually become deeply interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict in the last year of a two-term administration. So the process-only approach doesn't appear to be the thinking of the Obama administration.
On the other hand, it is not clear whether Washington has the stomach for a major confrontation with the new Israeli government. While leaks coming out of the White House say that the administration is preparing for such a possibility, few observers believe that this will be how things will in fact turn out.
ALTHOUGH THE main issue of difference at present is over the shape of any final outcome (two state or not), the more likely point of friction will most likely be issues that are taking place on the ground. A study of the Mitchell report (which was produced during the greatly pro-Israel Bush administration) points to settlements as the next point of confrontation. On this issue Mitchell and the US administration have been very clear even though they have not been effective. A freeze of all settlement activity which includes expansion and natural growth will certainly be the center of the focus for Mitchell and his team on the ground.
US presidential envoy George Mitchell is touring the region searching for signs of progress to report back to his boss and to move the peace process forward.
Palestinian children hold candles during a demonstration in Gaza City last week. Photo: AP
President Barack Obama and his aides have repeated over and over his support for the two-state solution, while the new Israeli government has refused to publicly support the Annapolis process and can't bring itself to use the three words: two-state solution. Obama also wants some quick confidence-building measures. One practical, short-term measure could be carried out quickly by the Israeli Defense Ministry without requiring any immediate political concessions. As Mitchell sets up his new office in Jerusalem with Keith Dayton as his security deputy and David Halle as his deputy for the peace talks, opening up the movement of goods and people from Gaza to the West Bank and back is something doable.
The traditional US diplomatic approach has been to impress on the process part of the "peace process." On the other hand, the often repeated Arab position is that the US can press Israel to amend its policies, either through cutting off aid or cutting off political protection (in other words abstaining rather than vetoing in the Security Council) or both.
Obama's impressive signals since day one in office (calling Arab leaders before European allies, appointing Mitchell and speaking on Al Arabiya TV) reflect a different approach than what has traditionally come out of Washington. In the last 30 years, US administrations have usually become deeply interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict in the last year of a two-term administration. So the process-only approach doesn't appear to be the thinking of the Obama administration.
On the other hand, it is not clear whether Washington has the stomach for a major confrontation with the new Israeli government. While leaks coming out of the White House say that the administration is preparing for such a possibility, few observers believe that this will be how things will in fact turn out.
ALTHOUGH THE main issue of difference at present is over the shape of any final outcome (two state or not), the more likely point of friction will most likely be issues that are taking place on the ground. A study of the Mitchell report (which was produced during the greatly pro-Israel Bush administration) points to settlements as the next point of confrontation. On this issue Mitchell and the US administration have been very clear even though they have not been effective. A freeze of all settlement activity which includes expansion and natural growth will certainly be the center of the focus for Mitchell and his team on the ground.
US presidential envoy George Mitchell is touring the region searching for signs of progress to report back to his boss and to move the peace process forward.
Palestinian children hold candles during a demonstration in Gaza City last week. Photo: AP
President Barack Obama and his aides have repeated over and over his support for the two-state solution, while the new Israeli government has refused to publicly support the Annapolis process and can't bring itself to use the three words: two-state solution. Obama also wants some quick confidence-building measures. One practical, short-term measure could be carried out quickly by the Israeli Defense Ministry without requiring any immediate political concessions. As Mitchell sets up his new office in Jerusalem with Keith Dayton as his security deputy and David Halle as his deputy for the peace talks, opening up the movement of goods and people from Gaza to the West Bank and back is something doable.
The traditional US diplomatic approach has been to impress on the process part of the "peace process." On the other hand, the often repeated Arab position is that the US can press Israel to amend its policies, either through cutting off aid or cutting off political protection (in other words abstaining rather than vetoing in the Security Council) or both.
Obama's impressive signals since day one in office (calling Arab leaders before European allies, appointing Mitchell and speaking on Al Arabiya TV) reflect a different approach than what has traditionally come out of Washington. In the last 30 years, US administrations have usually become deeply interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict in the last year of a two-term administration. So the process-only approach doesn't appear to be the thinking of the Obama administration.
On the other hand, it is not clear whether Washington has the stomach for a major confrontation with the new Israeli government. While leaks coming out of the White House say that the administration is preparing for such a possibility, few observers believe that this will be how things will in fact turn out.
ALTHOUGH THE main issue of difference at present is over the shape of any final outcome (two state or not), the more likely point of friction will most likely be issues that are taking place on the ground. A study of the Mitchell report (which was produced during the greatly pro-Israel Bush administration) points to settlements as the next point of confrontation. On this issue Mitchell and the US administration have been very clear even though they have not been effective. A freeze of all settlement activity which includes expansion and natural growth will certainly be the center of the focus for Mitchell and his team on the ground.
US presidential envoy George Mitchell is touring the region searching for signs of progress to report back to his boss and to move the peace process forward.
Palestinian children hold candles during a demonstration in Gaza City last week. Photo: AP
President Barack Obama and his aides have repeated over and over his support for the two-state solution, while the new Israeli government has refused to publicly support the Annapolis process and can't bring itself to use the three words: two-state solution. Obama also wants some quick confidence-building measures. One practical, short-term measure could be carried out quickly by the Israeli Defense Ministry without requiring any immediate political concessions. As Mitchell sets up his new office in Jerusalem with Keith Dayton as his security deputy and David Halle as his deputy for the peace talks, opening up the movement of goods and people from Gaza to the West Bank and back is something doable.
The traditional US diplomatic approach has been to impress on the process part of the "peace process." On the other hand, the often repeated Arab position is that the US can press Israel to amend its policies, either through cutting off aid or cutting off political protection (in other words abstaining rather than vetoing in the Security Council) or both.
Obama's impressive signals since day one in office (calling Arab leaders before European allies, appointing Mitchell and speaking on Al Arabiya TV) reflect a different approach than what has traditionally come out of Washington. In the last 30 years, US administrations have usually become deeply interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict in the last year of a two-term administration. So the process-only approach doesn't appear to be the thinking of the Obama administration.
On the other hand, it is not clear whether Washington has the stomach for a major confrontation with the new Israeli government. While leaks coming out of the White House say that the administration is preparing for such a possibility, few observers believe that this will be how things will in fact turn out.
ALTHOUGH THE main issue of difference at present is over the shape of any final outcome (two state or not), the more likely point of friction will most likely be issues that are taking place on the ground. A study of the Mitchell report (which was produced during the greatly pro-Israel Bush administration) points to settlements as the next point of confrontation. On this issue Mitchell and the US administration have been very clear even though they have not been effective. A freeze of all settlement activity which includes expansion and natural growth will certainly be the center of the focus for Mitchell and his team on the ground.
US presidential envoy George Mitchell is touring the region searching for signs of progress to report back to his boss and to move the peace process forward.
Palestinian children hold candles during a demonstration in Gaza City last week. Photo: AP
President Barack Obama and his aides have repeated over and over his support for the two-state solution, while the new Israeli government has refused to publicly support the Annapolis process and can't bring itself to use the three words: two-state solution. Obama also wants some quick confidence-building measures. One practical, short-term measure could be carried out quickly by the Israeli Defense Ministry without requiring any immediate political concessions. As Mitchell sets up his new office in Jerusalem with Keith Dayton as his security deputy and David Halle as his deputy for the peace talks, opening up the movement of goods and people from Gaza to the West Bank and back is something doable.
The traditional US diplomatic approach has been to impress on the process part of the "peace process." On the other hand, the often repeated Arab position is that the US can press Israel to amend its policies, either through cutting off aid or cutting off political protection (in other words abstaining rather than vetoing in the Security Council) or both.
Obama's impressive signals since day one in office (calling Arab leaders before European allies, appointing Mitchell and speaking on Al Arabiya TV) reflect a different approach than what has traditionally come out of Washington. In the last 30 years, US administrations have usually become deeply interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict in the last year of a two-term administration. So the process-only approach doesn't appear to be the thinking of the Obama administration.
On the other hand, it is not clear whether Washington has the stomach for a major confrontation with the new Israeli government. While leaks coming out of the White House say that the administration is preparing for such a possibility, few observers believe that this will be how things will in fact turn out.
ALTHOUGH THE main issue of difference at present is over the shape of any final outcome (two state or not), the more likely point of friction will most likely be issues that are taking place on the ground. A study of the Mitchell report (which was produced during the greatly pro-Israel Bush administration) points to settlements as the next point of confrontation. On this issue Mitchell and the US administration have been very clear even though they have not been effective. A freeze of all settlement activity which includes expansion and natural growth will certainly be the center of the focus for Mitchell and his team on the ground.
US presidential envoy George Mitchell is touring the region searching for signs of progress to report back to his boss and to move the peace process forward.
Palestinian children hold candles during a demonstration in Gaza City last week. Photo: AP
President Barack Obama and his aides have repeated over and over his support for the two-state solution, while the new Israeli government has refused to publicly support the Annapolis process and can't bring itself to use the three words: two-state solution. Obama also wants some quick confidence-building measures. One practical, short-term measure could be carried out quickly by the Israeli Defense Ministry without requiring any immediate political concessions. As Mitchell sets up his new office in Jerusalem with Keith Dayton as his security deputy and David Halle as his deputy for the peace talks, opening up the movement of goods and people from Gaza to the West Bank and back is something doable.
The traditional US diplomatic approach has been to impress on the process part of the "peace process." On the other hand, the often repeated Arab position is that the US can press Israel to amend its policies, either through cutting off aid or cutting off political protection (in other words abstaining rather than vetoing in the Security Council) or both.
Obama's impressive signals since day one in office (calling Arab leaders before European allies, appointing Mitchell and speaking on Al Arabiya TV) reflect a different approach than what has traditionally come out of Washington. In the last 30 years, US administrations have usually become deeply interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict in the last year of a two-term administration. So the process-only approach doesn't appear to be the thinking of the Obama administration.
On the other hand, it is not clear whether Washington has the stomach for a major confrontation with the new Israeli government. While leaks coming out of the White House say that the administration is preparing for such a possibility, few observers believe that this will be how things will in fact turn out.
ALTHOUGH THE main issue of difference at present is over the shape of any final outcome (two state or not), the more likely point of friction will most likely be issues that are taking place on the ground. A study of the Mitchell report (which was produced during the greatly pro-Israel Bush administration) points to settlements as the next point of confrontation. On this issue Mitchell and the US administration have been very clear even though they have not been effective. A freeze of all settlement activity which includes expansion and natural growth will certainly be the center of the focus for Mitchell and his team on the ground.
US presidential envoy George Mitchell is touring the region searching for signs of progress to report back to his boss and to move the peace process forward.
Palestinian children hold candles during a demonstration in Gaza City last week. Photo: AP
President Barack Obama and his aides have repeated over and over his support for the two-state solution, while the new Israeli government has refused to publicly support the Annapolis process and can't bring itself to use the three words: two-state solution. Obama also wants some quick confidence-building measures. One practical, short-term measure could be carried out quickly by the Israeli Defense Ministry without requiring any immediate political concessions. As Mitchell sets up his new office in Jerusalem with Keith Dayton as his security deputy and David Halle as his deputy for the peace talks, opening up the movement of goods and people from Gaza to the West Bank and back is something doable.
The traditional US diplomatic approach has been to impress on the process part of the "peace process." On the other hand, the often repeated Arab position is that the US can press Israel to amend its policies, either through cutting off aid or cutting off political protection (in other words abstaining rather than vetoing in the Security Council) or both.
Obama's impressive signals since day one in office (calling Arab leaders before European allies, appointing Mitchell and speaking on Al Arabiya TV) reflect a different approach than what has traditionally come out of Washington. In the last 30 years, US administrations have usually become deeply interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict in the last year of a two-term administration. So the process-only approach doesn't appear to be the thinking of the Obama administration.
On the other hand, it is not clear whether Washington has the stomach for a major confrontation with the new Israeli government. While leaks coming out of the White House say that the administration is preparing for such a possibility, few observers believe that this will be how things will in fact turn out.
ALTHOUGH THE main issue of difference at present is over the shape of any final outcome (two state or not), the more likely point of friction will most likely be issues that are taking place on the ground. A study of the Mitchell report (which was produced during the greatly pro-Israel Bush administration) points to settlements as the next point of confrontation. On this issue Mitchell and the US administration have been very clear even though they have not been effective. A freeze of all settlement activity which includes expansion and natural growth will certainly be the center of the focus for Mitchell and his team on the ground.
US presidential envoy George Mitchell is touring the region searching for signs of progress to report back to his boss and to move the peace process forward.
Palestinian children hold candles during a demonstration in Gaza City last week. Photo: AP
President Barack Obama and his aides have repeated over and over his support for the two-state solution, while the new Israeli government has refused to publicly support the Annapolis process and can't bring itself to use the three words: two-state solution. Obama also wants some quick confidence-building measures. One practical, short-term measure could be carried out quickly by the Israeli Defense Ministry without requiring any immediate political concessions. As Mitchell sets up his new office in Jerusalem with Keith Dayton as his security deputy and David Halle as his deputy for the peace talks, opening up the movement of goods and people from Gaza to the West Bank and back is something doable.
The traditional US diplomatic approach has been to impress on the process part of the "peace process." On the other hand, the often repeated Arab position is that the US can press Israel to amend its policies, either through cutting off aid or cutting off political protection (in other words abstaining rather than vetoing in the Security Council) or both.
Obama's impressive signals since day one in office (calling Arab leaders before European allies, appointing Mitchell and speaking on Al Arabiya TV) reflect a different approach than what has traditionally come out of Washington. In the last 30 years, US administrations have usually become deeply interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict in the last year of a two-term administration. So the process-only approach doesn't appear to be the thinking of the Obama administration.
On the other hand, it is not clear whether Washington has the stomach for a major confrontation with the new Israeli government. While leaks coming out of the White House say that the administration is preparing for such a possibility, few observers believe that this will be how things will in fact turn out.
ALTHOUGH THE main issue of difference at present is over the shape of any final outcome (two state or not), the more likely point of friction will most likely be issues that are taking place on the ground. A study of the Mitchell report (which was produced during the greatly pro-Israel Bush administration) points to settlements as the next point of confrontation. On this issue Mitchell and the US administration have been very clear even though they have not been effective. A freeze of all settlement activity which includes expansion and natural growth will certainly be the center of the focus for Mitchell and his team on the ground.
US presidential envoy George Mitchell is touring the region searching for signs of progress to report back to his boss and to move the peace process forward.
Palestinian children hold candles during a demonstration in Gaza City last week. Photo: AP
President Barack Obama and his aides have repeated over and over his support for the two-state solution, while the new Israeli government has refused to publicly support the Annapolis process and can't bring itself to use the three words: two-state solution. Obama also wants some quick confidence-building measures. One practical, short-term measure could be carried out quickly by the Israeli Defense Ministry without requiring any immediate political concessions. As Mitchell sets up his new office in Jerusalem with Keith Dayton as his security deputy and David Halle as his deputy for the peace talks, opening up the movement of goods and people from Gaza to the West Bank and back is something doable.
The traditional US diplomatic approach has been to impress on the process part of the "peace process." On the other hand, the often repeated Arab position is that the US can press Israel to amend its policies, either through cutting off aid or cutting off political protection (in other words abstaining rather than vetoing in the Security Council) or both.
Obama's impressive signals since day one in office (calling Arab leaders before European allies, appointing Mitchell and speaking on Al Arabiya TV) reflect a different approach than what has traditionally come out of Washington. In the last 30 years, US administrations have usually become deeply interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict in the last year of a two-term administration. So the process-only approach doesn't appear to be the thinking of the Obama administration.
On the other hand, it is not clear whether Washington has the stomach for a major confrontation with the new Israeli government. While leaks coming out of the White House say that the administration is preparing for such a possibility, few observers believe that this will be how things will in fact turn out.
ALTHOUGH THE main issue of difference at present is over the shape of any final outcome (two state or not), the more likely point of friction will most likely be issues that are taking place on the ground. A study of the Mitchell report (which was produced during the greatly pro-Israel Bush administration) points to settlements as the next point of confrontation. On this issue Mitchell and the US administration have been very clear even though they have not been effective. A freeze of all settlement activity which includes expansion and natural growth will certainly be the center of the focus for Mitchell and his team on the ground.
US presidential envoy George Mitchell is touring the region searching for signs of progress to report back to his boss and to move the peace process forward.
Palestinian children hold candles during a demonstration in Gaza City last week. Photo: AP
President Barack Obama and his aides have repeated over and over his support for the two-state solution, while the new Israeli government has refused to publicly support the Annapolis process and can't bring itself to use the three words: two-state solution. Obama also wants some quick confidence-building measures. One practical, short-term measure could be carried out quickly by the Israeli Defense Ministry without requiring any immediate political concessions. As Mitchell sets up his new office in Jerusalem with Keith Dayton as his security deputy and David Halle as his deputy for the peace talks, opening up the movement of goods and people from Gaza to the West Bank and back is something doable.
The traditional US diplomatic approach has been to impress on the process part of the "peace process." On the other hand, the often repeated Arab position is that the US can press Israel to amend its policies, either through cutting off aid or cutting off political protection (in other words abstaining rather than vetoing in the Security Council) or both.
Obama's impressive signals since day one in office (calling Arab leaders before European allies, appointing Mitchell and speaking on Al Arabiya TV) reflect a different approach than what has traditionally come out of Washington. In the last 30 years, US administrations have usually become deeply interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict in the last year of a two-term administration. So the process-only approach doesn't appear to be the thinking of the Obama administration.
On the other hand, it is not clear whether Washington has the stomach for a major confrontation with the new Israeli government. While leaks coming out of the White House say that the administration is preparing for such a possibility, few observers believe that this will be how things will in fact turn out.
ALTHOUGH THE main issue of difference at present is over the shape of any final outcome (two state or not), the more likely point of friction will most likely be issues that are taking place on the ground. A study of the Mitchell report (which was produced during the greatly pro-Israel Bush administration) points to settlements as the next point of confrontation. On this issue Mitchell and the US administration have been very clear even though they have not been effective. A freeze of all settlement activity which includes expansion and natural growth will certainly be the center of the focus for Mitchell and his team on the ground.
US presidential envoy George Mitchell is touring the region searching for signs of progress to report back to his boss and to move the peace process forward.
Read Full Article »