Book Review: A Path to Peace by George Mitchell and Alon Sachar
A Brief History of Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations and a Way Forward in the Middle East
I finished reading A Path to Peace: A Brief History of Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations and a Way Forward in the Middle East by George Mitchell and Alon Sachar towards the end of September 2024. It kicked off at least a month or more of reading about Jewish or Israeli history in one way or another. It also reminded me that I need to re-read Doomed to Succeed by Ambassador Dennis Ross and check out his definitive book (through 2005) on the conflict, The Missing Peace. This one, of course, covers the history through a U.S. lens and US involvement.
I’ve had the hardcover on hand since late 2016 and pulled it out of the bins while I was reorganizing my apartment this summer. With the war dragging on as long as it has, I decided that it was time to take a break from baseball reading to finally read this one. It’s very insightful and informative. Honestly, much like the Daniel Gordis books that I’ve read in October, people can really learn about the conflict through reading this book.
After retiring from the U.S. Senate, George Mitchell helped negotiate the Good Friday Agreement, bringing peace to Northern Ireland. President Barack Obama named him as the US Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, where he would serve in the position during 2009-2011. What we have here, ultimately, is a U.S. insider’s look from a man that was in the room and it’s through this lens in which he—along with co-author Alon Sachar—offers an assessment on what needs to happen. Obviously, so much has changed since 2016 and it’s very hard to think about any pathway to peace at the moment. One day soon, Im Yirtzeh Hashem.
One key line early in the book feels strikingly relevant now as it did upon publication: “It is equally true, however, that while every U.S. president since 1948 has pursued Arab-Israeli peace, none has been fully successful and all have emerged bruised.” President Joe Biden’s bruising having coming during the Democratic primary with the uncommitted movement getting a good amount of votes in various states.
Even during the exile after the fall of the Second Temple, Jews had always maintained a small presence in the land of Israel, mainly in Hebron, Tiberias, Safed, and Jerusalem. And yet, it was also home to descendants of people who originated in the region or had arrived as the result of various conquests. The Muslim Caliphates conquered the land in the seventh century and by 1890, Ottoman Palestine consisted of 430,000 Muslims and 57,000 Christians. And then came the first wave of Jewsh immigration as a result of pogroms and ethnic cleansing in Europe and Russia. This coincided with the rise of Zionism.
When people discuss the conflict, it is usually just Jews that mention how 800,000 were expelled, fled, or left their homes in Arab countries in the years that followed 1948. This is rarely mentioned in the overall conversation when people discuss displacement.
Wars followed again in 1956 and 1967. Surrounding countries hoped to make up for their defeat in 1948. It resulted in Israel gaining territory. While Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt during the later peace treaty, we’re still discussing the war today. I’m not going to personally get into it because I realize that nothing I say or do will lead to peace. What I do know is that something needs to happen but right now, there is no leadership on either side on the ground that wants peace. It doesn’t matter how many world leaders discuss a two-state solution when there’s no realistic scenario on the ground at the moment.
Back to 1948 for a moment. Some of the issues that we’re dealing with today goes back to the Arab defeat in 1948. It isn’t just that they rejected the UN partition but after the War of Independence, “Arab countries made clear they had no haven for providing a haven for the Palestinians.” They were still focused on defeating Israel so the UN had to step in and form UNRWA. The initial goal was for “Palestinian self-sufficiency to replace international emergency aid” but this never happened at any point in history. The continued reliance on UNRWA is a probably a contributing factor in why we don’t have peace today.
I can understand why Israel was not about to let in 710,000 Palestinian refugees because it would mean that the Jewish state would no longer be a Jewish-majority state. There were 160,000 Arab residents that chose not to flee and they became Israeli citizens. But at the same time, and this is key: “Arab states would not allow Palestinian refugees to return.”
During the 2000 talks, both Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat accepted the Clinton Parameters with reservations. Clinton said that Arafat’s reservations were inappropriate. Ultimately, Arafat said no. Mind you, the Second Intifada was going on. To which Clinton wrote in his memoir, “Arafat’s rejection of my proposal after Barak accepted it was an error of historic proportions. Clinton would later worn President George W. Bush that Arafat would lie to him.
In summer 2002, President Bush proposed the Roadmap for Peace. This roadmap would be adopted in 2003 by the Quartet for Middle East peace: US, European UN, UN, and Russia. It was performance-based with a goal of Palestinian statehood. Both Israel and the PA accepted the Roadmap. The PM at this point was Ariel Sharon. That he announced his support for a two-state solution was a shock, given his background. He is seen as the father of the settler movement and at the same time, he was the PM when Israel formally withdrew from Gaza in 2005. But back to the Roadmap, it had three phases.
Phase 1:
Palestinians immediately end violence and incitement to violence
Reform, professionalize, and restructure security services
Resume security cooperation with Israel
Enact political reforms to end corruption and cronyism
Israeli withdrawal from positions held before the intifada as part of the Oslo process to give PA space to reform and operate
Freeze settlement activity
Phase 2 focused on the transition to Palestinian statehood and then phase 3 called for negotiations to establish a state within five years and normalize relations between Israel and surrounding Arab countries. There isn’t a state at the moment but the Abraham Accords led to relations between Israel and a number of Arab countries.
The process slowly died by 2003 and talks didn’t restart again until 2007. By this point, Arafat was dead and Sharon had fallen into a coma. But before then, Israel pulled out of Gaza and as we all know, Hamas took over and subsequently forced Fatah out during the summer of 2007. When the PA held elections to replace Arafat, Hamas boycotted, viewing both the PA and PLO as being illegitimate in their view. It was and remains their belief “to establish an Islamic government in all of the former British Mandate for Palestine.”
Interestingly enough, in 2005, Fatah and Hamas did reach a truce. This led to the first legislative elections since 1996. Hamas was kept on the ballot but Abbas felt Fatah would win. Hamas won a majority, much to the shock and dismay of everyone. Israel wouldn’t cooperate or engage with the PA if Hamas ran any part of the government. Similarly, the Quartet conditioned their engagement. It’s no surprise that Hamas refused to recognize Israel, renounce violence, or accept any of the previous agreements between Israel and the PLO. Nothing has changed.
After talks restarted between Ehud Olmert and Abbas, the results in 2008 were no different than eight years earlier. Israel offered and Abbas rejected the offer. Olmert offered more than any previous Israeli leader. Olmert found himself embroiled in a scandal so a new election was underway between Benjamin Netanyahu and Tzipi Livni. Netanyahu’s viewed the discussions as being dangerous, which certainly comes as no surprise.
There’s something that I do need to talk about: settlement freezes. My comments have noting to do about being for or against. Rath, it has to do when Presidents Bush and Obama requesting the same thing and yet only Obama’s position was viewed as a threat. Nobody has ever accused President Bush of being anti-Israel even though he requested a settlement freeze and got a UN Security Council resolution passed in support.
While the Goldstone Report was later recounted by Judge Richard Goldstone, the book touches on the biases within the UN Human Rights Council: “It became clear that the mandate given to Goldstone by the Human Rights Council was politically motivated. Many members of the Council were flagrant violators of human rights in their own countries. Yet roughly half of all resolutions passed through the council focus on Israel.” Some things don’t change.
Should a peace plan come to be in my lifetime, any agreement will be based on both the Clinton Parameters and Bush Roadmap. How we get to a point in which there can be a pathway to peace is the million-dollar question. Mitchell and Sachar offer their ideas. Will these be taken up by the next administration? It’s really hard to say.
As daunting and challenging of a task as it may be, A Path to Peace presents a potential pathway to peace.