What is it they say about unwanted house guests making themselves at home?

The special US envoy for Middle East peace, George Mitchell, has asked to open his own office in the region to deal with day-to-day developments between Israel, the Palestinians and neighboring states, signaling a desire for greater American hands-on involvement in negotiations. Mitchell, who just returned from the region on Monday and plans to go back this month after Israel's February 10 elections, has proposed placing a small staff in Jerusalem to monitor the situation on the ground, officials briefed on his recommendation said Tuesday... "I plan to establish a regular and sustained presence in the region," he told reporters. "There are no easy or risk free courses of action, but I am convinced ... that with patience and determined and persevering diplomacy we can help to make a difference and we can assist those in the region achieve the peace and stability that people on all sides long for," he said.

If only there was a place in Israel where American envoys could have offices. A place staffed by diplomats, where visiting US officials could temporarily stay while they're working in the country. Someone should invent something like that.

It's not that this request makes any formal difference. Mitchell is going to be in the region no matter what. Critics of the US-Israel relationship like Stephen Walt are pretty psyched about how he's going to "pressure" Israel. He's inevitably going to publish his "it's Israel's fault that my Hamas equals the IRA approach failed" report. The office building he's sitting in when he types it up isn't really the concern.

What's obnoxious is the expectation that Israel should welcome an envoy who was appointed as a signal of impending US pressure. This goes beyond assuming that Israel will adhere to a colorless nicety like greeting a new envoy at the airport. This is expecting Israel to be happy about getting knocked around diplomatically. It's part and parcel of a whole attitude toward Israel, where the norms of decency and reciprocity just don't apply.

It's the same attitude that caused the writers at the London Daily News to complain that Israelis were following their "own selfish security concerns" during Operation Cast Lead. Israelis aren't supposed to care about that. Hamas's willingness to sacrifice Palestinian and Israeli civilians in their genocidal quest to establish a sharia state in Gaza? That's something we have to "understand" because it springs from "legitimate grievances." But Israel doing what any other state would have done and what countries like Turkey regularly do? Perish the thought!

For 15 years diplomatic sophisticates have told Israel to take "risks for peace" - to give up territory and the security that comes with it - while the Palestinians built up enough "confidence" to end anti-Semitic incitement and genocidal violence. That's a decade and a half of moral asymmetry: Israelis letting go of precious land while the Palestinians were suppose to give up the ghost on pathological hatred. It's also a decade and a half of structural asymmetry: the Israelis sacrificing something tangible in expectation of intangible Palestinian concessions. The ostensibly reasonability of the process has now officially become a habit of thought - a deep-seated expectation - where Israeli citizens are supposed to eagerly embrace making concessions.

References and previously after the jump...