George Mitchell, a former prominent Democratic figure in the US Senate is most likely going to be selected by US President Barak Obama as his advisor and special envoy on Mideast affairs.
Mitchell, 75, was instrumental in bringing the agreement to Northern Ireland during the Clinton administration and the new president will be looking for him to make his magic work in the Mideast as well.
While Mitchell’s name wasn’t mentioned by the president on inauguration day, the president is expected to make the appointment soon as most predict he will begin addressing the Mideast scene early on in his administration.
In 2001, Mitchell prepared a brief for then President Bush detailing the Mideast conflict, which provided the basis for ‘two state solution’ which calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon accepted the Mitchell report, which demands significant land compromise towards the creation of another Arab nation in the region.
(Yechiel Spira – YWN Israel)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
5 Responses
No need for this “special envoy” to “do his magic.” There already is a State of Terrorism alongside Eretz Yisroel.
1. Note that what really ended the conflict in Northern Ireland was the realization that they were fighting about issues that no longer existed. The war ended at a time when Ireland was only barely Catholic, and Britain had become so secular that the established church was barely relevant, and that Ireland had largely closed the economic gap with England and Scotland.
2. The two-state solution has great attraction for many secular Israelis since the possibility of having to co-exist with Muslims is horrifying (imagine laws banning gays, abortions, pork breeding, free sex, public nakedness, etc.). If frum Jews found a way to settle the political issues with Muslims, a one-state solution might work. Secular Jews want to live in a European style state, and their only hope is a two-state solution resulting in an Arab Islamic state, and a secular state (and hoping for enough secular Arabs and imported goyim to keep the Jews out of power). At present, the Muslims oppose two-state more than any Israelis (the problem is they one a single Islamic state).
depends which Arabs and which secular Israelis.
Would I prefer King Abdullah to Trotsky, or even the sort of regime advoccted by the late Tommy Lapid?
Am I willing to ban mishkav zochor in order to have peace?
Would giving up Israelis leading role in “trafficking women” by a fair exchange in return for letting Jews live in peace anywhere in Erertz Yisrael? What about having to give up ribbis, or pork (meaning pig-meat, not crumbs from the budget)? What about the price of having Arabic replace English in Israel.
also define “in control” — does “in control”
include closing down yeshivos, ordering Jewish girls into the army, punishing people for keeping Shabbos. IF we agreed that instead of using European law, Israel would follow Jewish law and would only act contrary to Islamic law if halacha required it (thus we’ld ban pork, probably ban public consumption of alcohol, but be free to drink privately as is out custom, etc.) — who is in control?
The question is what do we demand in return. Sufficient military to serve as a deterrent? That Jews are only subject to our own law and own communal government? Unlimited immigration of frum Jews (and others if they have no where to flee)?
Mitchell’s mother, Mary Saad, was a textile worker who immigrated to the United States from Lebanon at the age of eighteen.
Take it for what it’s worth
Mitchell’s mother, Mary Saad
Saad,Is that a large Arab family from Lebanon? (or is it a Jewish family).