The U.S., Israel, Palestinian Triangle

The United States’ role in the peace process has always drawn significant attention. Some critics allege the United States cannot serve as a proper mediator due to U.S. officials’ unrelenting support for Israel. Others say the U.S. government, and particularly the Obama Administration, has been imposing an unfair and one-sided expectations on Israel, such as the mandate of a settlement freeze. Some people allege that only the United States can serve as broker for the peace process while others claim that Saudi Arabia or Europe should take the reigns.

The latest bitterlemons series focuses on the relationship between the United States, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority. Of note is an interview with Birzeit University Professor George Giacaman provides an interesting assessment of the duality of the U.S. role in the peace process. On one hand, he describes U.S. support for Israel as “blind” and historically un-objective. On the other hand, he says only the U.S. can serve as an adequate intermediary in negotiations.

bitterlemons: How important is the triangular relationship among the Palestinians, Israelis and Americans?

Giacaman: So far it has been an adversarial relationship, given the fact that Israel is occupying Palestinian territory and the almost total and blind American support for the Israeli position. In this sense, the US administration has never been an objective and fair intermediary between the two, quite the opposite.

bitterlemons: But is the US the only viable mediator?

Giacaman: So far, yes. That’s why the initial position of the Obama administration gave Palestinians, and Arabs generally, some hope. However, it has become clear that there is either a lack of political will on the part of the administration or there are simply limitations on what an American administration can do, given the various forces that blindly support the position of any Israeli government, especially in the US Congress, which is dominated by the pro-Israel lobby.

Operating under the assumption that both of Giacaman’s assertions are correct (which is highly debated and an issue I am not going to get into at this juncture), are they mutually exclusive? Absolutely not.

Regardless of a U.S. position on Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state, the United States is the only country with resources to navigate a highly tumultuous peace process. The United States has the military and economic leverage to force concessions on both sides and infuse resources (once again, either military or economic) to bolster the prospects of a successful negotiation.

Moreover, the United States already has the experience of serving as a broker in peace deals, including the Egyptian-Israel peace accords and the Oslo process. This experience provides U.S. officials with credibility and the institutional knowledge to address contentious issues in the peace process.

That said, the U.S.-brokered Israel-Palestinian peace process is largely in the dumps, as it has been for decades. And some blame the United States (see previous post).