US’ role as ‘honest broker’ in Mideast East

Having closely followed the Palestinian-Israeli peace process since the Madrid peace conference, I can hardly avoid the conclusion that the Unites States is part of the problem as it has failed to act as an “honest broker.” I just finished reading Rashid Khalidi’s intriguing book entitled “Brokers of Deception” in which he makes the case that the US has never been an impartial mediator in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Is this a surprise? Hardly!
Here again, another US secretary of the state steps in the ring to help Israelis and the Palestinians work out a fair deal. Explicit in Kerry’s move is his desire to succeed where his predecessor failed. He wants the Palestinian-Israeli peace deal to be his signature legacy. Yet, I am not sure that he understands the requirements for a fair deal. Forcing the Palestinians to conform to the Israeli government’s vision is one thing and working to dismantle the structure of occupation and the matrix of Israeli control to achieve a lasting peace is another thing.
I am not saying that Kerry should not try to mediate. On the contrary, the US is the only country on this planet that can pressure the Israeli government to come to terms with what is widely deemed as a fair deal. But his shuttle diplomacy is nothing but a smokescreen concealing the American attempt to force the Palestinians to accept less than a fair deal. To use Aaron David Miller’s words, America is “Israel’s lawyer.”
In his last visit to Israel less than a week ago, Kerry presented his ideas about ways of protecting Israel’s security if a Palestinian state was established. Perhaps, it is the first time that the Americans outlined their own proposals with regard to the issue of security. It seems that by providing proposals, Kerry wants to know of the security argument being tossed willy-nilly around all the time. In other words, Kerry thinks that his ideas can meet the requirement of Israel’s security without infringing on Palestinian sovereignty. We don’t know yet the contents of Kerry’s proposals.
For Netanyahu, Israeli security entails the presence of military troops along the Jordan River. He made it perfectly clear that his country would not consider the notion of dependence on a third party presence along the Jordan River. It is difficult to square this position with the Palestinians insistence on full sovereignty. Palestinians are not oblivious to the Israeli security argument, yet they are open to a different idea that would not compromise their independence. President Abbas is quite amenable to the idea of third party presence in the future Palestinian state.
Israelis are divided over the issues. There are some who argue that future threats will come from missiles, which makes territories and topography less important for the security of Israel. Against that, there are those who believe that the Jordan valley is a buffer and Israel should make sure that it remains so. To be sure, there are those who still use the security pretext to undermine the prospects of an independent Palestinians state.
Therefore, one should not take Netanyahu’s line that Israel is ready for peace at face value. I found his foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, more honest when he says that peace with the Palestinians is unlikely. True, Lieberman is against peace on ideological grounds, but his statement made at the annual Saban Forum in Washington a few days ago reflect the sentiments of the majority in the government.
Given the rigidity of the situation, Kerry needs to understand that the Palestinians will not settle for any deal that does not fit the bill of “fair” deal. Although Abbas is desperate to get a deal, he cannot do that at any price. Half of his people are supporting Hamas and a bad deal with Israel will only guarantee the end of Abbas.
For peace to materialize, Kerry should work toward ending the structure of the occupation and the matrix of control. Since American mediation in the conflict started back in the 1970s, no single American president — Bill Clinton included — ever worked toward dismantling the structure of occupation.
All we have seen is a complicit American role that attaches primacy to Israeli demands. We may recall the humiliating withdrawal of President Obama from his position articulated during the first month of his first term. As it stands, American cannot be an “honest” broker.

Email: [email protected]