On Oct. 1, 2001, President George W. Bush casually mentioned that the Mitchell Report is the basis of future peace talks between Israel and the PLO. One year after that report was commissioned, perhaps the time has come to take stock as to whether that report was indeed "balanced and fair."
In late October, 2000, US President Bill Clinton appointed an international commission to investigate the causes of the rioting in Israel, naming an Arab-American and former US Senator, George Mitchell, as its chairman, and a Jewish-American, also a former US Senator, Warren Rudman, to the panel, together with three prominent European diplomats. Initial reaction in Israel to the publication of the Mitchell Commission report in May, 2001, evoked a sigh of relief that the Mitchell Commission did not blame Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for instigating the riots in September, 2000, by his visit to the Temple Mount.
However, even with the Sharon Temple Mount Accusation out of the way, the Mitchell Commission report accepted all of the other specious Arab premises for the current PLO insurrection. The Mitchell Commission accepted as a given that the PLO uprising is based on some kind of movement for "independence and genuine self-determination", without giving credence to the clearly stated PLO goal, repeated in all PLO publications, maps and media outlets, even during the current Oslo process: the "liberation" of all of ?Palestine.?
The Mitchell Commission characterized the rioters armed with Molotov cocktails as "unarmed Palestinian demonstrators," a term that they seemed to have borrowed from several PLO information reports that have been published of late. The Commission adopted the position that Israel's security forces do not face a clear a present danger when faced with a mob trying to murder them with rocks and firebombs.
The Mitchell Commission report further failed to mention that the PA has amassed 50,000 more weapons than they are supposed to have, in clear violation of the written Oslo accords, not only the "spirit of the accords", which seems to carry more weight with the Commission.
The Mitchell Commission rejected the notion that the PA planned the uprising, as if the PA did not spend the past seven years preparing its media, school system and security services for a confrontation with Israel. The Mitchell Commission also described as an Israeli "view" the Palestinian Authority leadership?s failure to make any real effort to prevent anti-Israeli terrorism, while accepting the notion that the PA security officials are simply not in control of their own tightly controlled security services.
The Mitchell Commission also rejected Israel's characterization of the conflict, as "armed conflict short of war" (how else would you describe an army that fires mortar rounds into Israeli cities?) and the idea that the IDF has the right to kill PLO combat officers during such time of war. Needless to say, the Commission?s report provides no alternative as to what actions the IDF is supposed to take in any such military confrontation.
Instead of issuing a clear call to the PLO to stop its sniper attacks on Israel's roads and highways, the Mitchell Commission simply "condemns the positioning of gunmen within or near civilian dwellings", leaving the observer to assume that PLO attacks from empty embankments would be acceptable. Meanwhile, "the IDF should consider withdrawing to positions held before September 28, 2000, .to reduce the number of friction points", ignoring the fact that this would leave the entry points to many Israeli cities without appropriate protection at a time of war. Taking a page out of Arab propaganda brochures, the Mitchell report calls on Israeli "security forces and settlers to refrain from the destruction of homes and roads, as well as trees and other agricultural property in Palestinian areas", not even relating to the possibility that some areas of trees and agricultural land had been razed because they had given cover to the PA security forces during combat.
The Mitchell Commission further demanded that Israel should transfer to the PA all tax revenues owed and permit Palestinians who had been employed in Israel to return to their jobs. The strange recommendation amounts to the Israeli government once again paying the salaries of the armed PLO personnel who are now at war with Israel.
The Mitchell Commission accepted the notion that "settlers and settlements in their midst" remain a cause of the Palestinian uprising, because these Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria violate "the spirit of the Oslo process". Yet, the Commission members knew full well that not a word appears in the actual Oslo accords that require the dismemberment of a single Israeli settlement, anywhere. The Mitchell Commission found a connection between "settlement activities" and the Palestinian ability to resume negotiations, making the judgment that negotiations cannot continue, so long as "settlement activities" continue. The Mitchell Commission thereby introduced an excuse for the PLO to continue its armed conflict, ignoring the fact that the theme of the Palestinian Arab uprising remains the liberation of all of Palestine.
It would seem that acceptance of the Mitchell Commission report represents a return to the myopic polices of the Clinton Administration. It is a wonder why a Bush Administration would invoke it as a basis for policy.
-------------------
David Bedein is Director of the Israel Resource News Agency.
In late October, 2000, US President Bill Clinton appointed an international commission to investigate the causes of the rioting in Israel, naming an Arab-American and former US Senator, George Mitchell, as its chairman, and a Jewish-American, also a former US Senator, Warren Rudman, to the panel, together with three prominent European diplomats. Initial reaction in Israel to the publication of the Mitchell Commission report in May, 2001, evoked a sigh of relief that the Mitchell Commission did not blame Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for instigating the riots in September, 2000, by his visit to the Temple Mount.
However, even with the Sharon Temple Mount Accusation out of the way, the Mitchell Commission report accepted all of the other specious Arab premises for the current PLO insurrection. The Mitchell Commission accepted as a given that the PLO uprising is based on some kind of movement for "independence and genuine self-determination", without giving credence to the clearly stated PLO goal, repeated in all PLO publications, maps and media outlets, even during the current Oslo process: the "liberation" of all of ?Palestine.?
The Mitchell Commission characterized the rioters armed with Molotov cocktails as "unarmed Palestinian demonstrators," a term that they seemed to have borrowed from several PLO information reports that have been published of late. The Commission adopted the position that Israel's security forces do not face a clear a present danger when faced with a mob trying to murder them with rocks and firebombs.
The Mitchell Commission report further failed to mention that the PA has amassed 50,000 more weapons than they are supposed to have, in clear violation of the written Oslo accords, not only the "spirit of the accords", which seems to carry more weight with the Commission.
The Mitchell Commission rejected the notion that the PA planned the uprising, as if the PA did not spend the past seven years preparing its media, school system and security services for a confrontation with Israel. The Mitchell Commission also described as an Israeli "view" the Palestinian Authority leadership?s failure to make any real effort to prevent anti-Israeli terrorism, while accepting the notion that the PA security officials are simply not in control of their own tightly controlled security services.
The Mitchell Commission also rejected Israel's characterization of the conflict, as "armed conflict short of war" (how else would you describe an army that fires mortar rounds into Israeli cities?) and the idea that the IDF has the right to kill PLO combat officers during such time of war. Needless to say, the Commission?s report provides no alternative as to what actions the IDF is supposed to take in any such military confrontation.
Instead of issuing a clear call to the PLO to stop its sniper attacks on Israel's roads and highways, the Mitchell Commission simply "condemns the positioning of gunmen within or near civilian dwellings", leaving the observer to assume that PLO attacks from empty embankments would be acceptable. Meanwhile, "the IDF should consider withdrawing to positions held before September 28, 2000, .to reduce the number of friction points", ignoring the fact that this would leave the entry points to many Israeli cities without appropriate protection at a time of war. Taking a page out of Arab propaganda brochures, the Mitchell report calls on Israeli "security forces and settlers to refrain from the destruction of homes and roads, as well as trees and other agricultural property in Palestinian areas", not even relating to the possibility that some areas of trees and agricultural land had been razed because they had given cover to the PA security forces during combat.
The Mitchell Commission further demanded that Israel should transfer to the PA all tax revenues owed and permit Palestinians who had been employed in Israel to return to their jobs. The strange recommendation amounts to the Israeli government once again paying the salaries of the armed PLO personnel who are now at war with Israel.
The Mitchell Commission accepted the notion that "settlers and settlements in their midst" remain a cause of the Palestinian uprising, because these Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria violate "the spirit of the Oslo process". Yet, the Commission members knew full well that not a word appears in the actual Oslo accords that require the dismemberment of a single Israeli settlement, anywhere. The Mitchell Commission found a connection between "settlement activities" and the Palestinian ability to resume negotiations, making the judgment that negotiations cannot continue, so long as "settlement activities" continue. The Mitchell Commission thereby introduced an excuse for the PLO to continue its armed conflict, ignoring the fact that the theme of the Palestinian Arab uprising remains the liberation of all of Palestine.
It would seem that acceptance of the Mitchell Commission report represents a return to the myopic polices of the Clinton Administration. It is a wonder why a Bush Administration would invoke it as a basis for policy.
-------------------
David Bedein is Director of the Israel Resource News Agency.