Senator George Mitchell does not deserve to end his diplomatic life amidst failure because of a conflict in the Middle East. But in reality, the reason behind this failure is not due to the experienced senator's lack of skills in rounding corners, but because he was deployed to a region witnessing a conflict that has marked its second decade and was not provided with the necessary weapons to achieve any progress. George Mitchell is not the one responsible for this failure of course, but his president Barack Obama is. The Middle East envoy was required to achieve a historic breakthrough which all of his predecessors failed to achieve. The president himself promised this breakthrough, as he considered that focusing on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict at the outset of his tenure will provide chances for success that will not be available in light of the pressures that accompany the electoral campaigns at the end of his tenure. However, the first obstacle that faced Obama was represented by Benjamin Netanyahu's advent as a prime minister in Israel, one month after the new American president took office. With the known intransigence of the Likud leader and the right-wing group surrounding him – which provides the chances of survival for his government – it has become clear that achieving any breakthrough in the Middle East conflict will necessitate a miracle or a battle. Since the times of miracles are bygone, there should be a battle with Netanyahu in order for the new American administration to convince the Palestinians and the Arabs that it has serious intentions to reach a just solution to the conflict, one that rests on the bases ratified by the Arab peace initiative, which is based on the international legitimacy resolutions. While presenting his vision for the solution at the end of his tenure, Obama used a different language than that which the Palestinians and Arabs were used to hear from Washington. His "extended hand" to Iran did not help him in his confrontation with Israel, as Iran is concerned with its nuclear program and its president reiterates his free threats for the Hebrew State. Therefore, the leaders of the Jewish organizations in the United States felt that the strategic relationship between the US and Israel – with the latter surviving on this strong relationship – might be threatened under the new president. They hurried to convene a meeting with Obama at the White House last July, which can be described as a "historic" meeting between both sides. During that meeting, the Jewish leaders obtained two commitments from Obama: The solution to the Mideast conflict and the Iranian dossier should not pose a threat to Israel's security, according to the Israeli perspective of security. Also, any "concession" made by the Hebrew Sate towards the Palestinians should be accompanied at the same time by progress on the road of normalizing its relations with the Arab states. The "fruits" of this meeting started to appear when Obama retracted from negotiating with Israel over the final status issues altogether (Jerusalem, the refugees, and the settlements). Instead of having the settlements for these complicated problems be the necessary price in return for normalization from the Arabs, Obama decided to divide the solution in the hope of achieving any progress to build his coming steps upon it. Choosing the issue of settlements was for the purpose of testing the American muscles with Israel. But the loser in such a battle was known from the outset. Netanyahu considers that his defeat in the issue of settlements undermines his credibility in Israel, as well as his political future. One of the aides to the Israeli prime minister described his position vis-à-vis the settlement project by saying: Netanyahu views the settlements as an integral part of the Zionist project. He considers the settlers as his brothers. Some politicians in Israel believe that abandoning the settlements in Judea and Samari might help Israel, but Netanyahu is not among these politicians. Obama does not have a lot of options after his defeat by Netanyahu. The president cannot afford the costs of carrying on such a battle, even if he wants to, particularly with the domestic campaigns he is exposed to. Therefore, the tripartite meeting between him, Netanyahu, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will turn into an opportunity to shake hands, take pictures and restore some of the Camp David and Oslo memories. As such, Obama's administration wants to imply that it is following the footsteps of the two Democratic administrations of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. However, neither the circumstances nor the chances of solutions that were once available for the two former presidents are the same today.
