Candid and positive

The Washington Post reports that George Mitchell has left Syria and headed to Israel with good news:

Earlier in the Syrian capital, Damascus, the former U.S. senator said that he had “just completed a very candid and positive conversation with President Assad.”

“I discussed with President Assad the prospects for moving forward on our goals of comprehensive peace in the region and improved bilateral ties between Syria and the United States,” he said.

And the New York Times has even better news from Israel:

If, as is widely believed abroad, “natural growth” by Israeli settlers is blocking the creation of a viable Palestinian state, this community should show why.

But appearances are deceiving. Modiin Illit and its sister community, Beitar Illit, are entirely ultra-Orthodox, a world apart, one of strict religious observance and study. They offer surprising potential for compromise.

Unlike settlers who believe they are continuing the historic Zionist mission of reclaiming the Jewish homeland, most ultra-Orthodox do not consider themselves settlers or Zionists and express no commitment to being in the West Bank, so their growth in these settlement towns, situated just inside the pre-1967 boundary, could be redirected westward to within Israel.

What neither news story explains is why neither of these – even if accurate – would be enough for there to be peace. Barry Rubin explains why not:

So Obama himself went to Saudi Arabia and got…nothing. Hillary Clinton went to the Gulf Arab states and got…nothing. U.S. envoy George Mitchell went to the United Arab Emirates, Syria, Bahrain, and Egypt and got…nothing.

And Obama, reportedly, wrote at least seven Arab states—including Morocco–asking them to show they wanted to make peace with Israel. He, too, will get nothing. Indeed, even if settlement construction were to freeze over he will get nothing.

The Saudis have already said they aren’t inclined to give anything.

Doesn’t everyone know this?

But consider how this is being carried out. First, the United States bashes Israel and demands a concession. Only then does it ask for some Arab quid pro quo. Why should they give anything when they would rather maintain a U.S.-Israel rift?

Of course, the pretense is that Israel hasn’t given enough, the same line that was used all through the 10-year-long 1990’s peace process era. But if Israel’s prime minister were to stand on his head and sing Um Kalthoum hits would that change anything? No.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.