Several consecutive visits to and from the Middle East have been taking place these days: the special US envoy George Mitchell is in Beirut, and he was preceded by James Jones, the US National Security Council advisor, in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and the region. Today, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri is in France for an official visit, as if it is a state visit. Hariri has also been to Turkey and the UAE, after a historic visit to Damascus. What do all of these visits to the region mean, and are we seeing developments on all of the fronts of the Arab-Israeli conflict? When Mitchell visited Paris and Brussels, he asked the Europeans and friendly allies to urge Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to resume negotiations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Mitchell said he would visit Damascus to see how the Israeli-Syrian track could be re-started, via Turkey. Now, Mitchell will discuss conditions in the south with Lebanese officials; the US envoy arrived in order to show that the White House remains committed to Lebanon, even though Lebanese officials are aware that they cannot begin negotiations with Israel before Syria. This is because Lebanon is weak, due to the presence of a resistance that is stronger than the army and the state. However, none of these visits by American officials will lead to any progress on any track, as long as the Israeli prime minister continues with his current policies. How can Mahmoud Abbas accept a return to peace negotiations without Israel taking any encouraging step vis-à-vis the Palestinian people, such as removing roadblocks in Palestinian territory and halting settlement, to allow the PA president to begin building the trust needed to resume negotiations? It is true that the PA's prime minister, Salam Fayyad, deserves all possible support. He is working fairly and ably to build the institutions of the future state. However, one hand alone cannot clap; how can his efforts be noticed under the occupation and Israeli policies of expansionism? If the White House wants to resume negotiations between Syria and Israel via Turkey and see a return of indirect dialogue between the Israelis and the Syrians, it must convince Israel that actions harming Turkey and its diplomacy reveal to us that Netanyahu does not want peace with Syria, the Palestinians or Lebanon. Israel has not withdrawn from Ghajar; it sends out contradictory messages. One day, it tells the French foreign minister that it is going to withdraw. Then, it stalls, and does not withdraw. Every day, it sends messages to the Lebanese government that it might be punished if the Lebanese resistance makes any moves. In fact, the majority of Arab parties, from the PA to Syria and Lebanon, hope for solutions to the conflict in the Middle East, in contrast to the main party concerned with the issue, namely Israel. The stances of the Israeli government are an excuse for all of the extremism and hard-line policies in the region. Whenever things reach a crisis point between Iran and its neighbors and the west, Iran uses the excuse of Israel to cover its domestic repression and hard-line stances, and its extremism and bullying abroad. There is a fear that Iranian intimidation in the region will increase, with the expansion of its trouble-making in Yemen, where it helps the Houthis, as it supports Hamas and Hizbullah. To begin with, Netanyahu and his government do not want the Middle East region to be secure, or a place where peace reigns. It is clear that Israel does not want a Palestinian state on its borders; it prefers to keep in place the state of war and terror in neighboring states, so that it can remain the policeman of the region. Mitchell's messages to the region might resemble the ones to Paris and Brussels, i.e. prompting Mahmoud Abbas to resume negotiations with Israel and helping Salam Fayyad (and everyone is agreed that he should be helped), in addition to searching for ways to resume the Syrian-Israeli track. All of these steps will fail as long as Israel continues to maneuver, while rejecting a true peace. There is little hope that Mitchell will be able to change this course, despite his earlier success in Ireland.
