No, America, You Can't

In America, the people take great pride in their ability and the ability of their nation. There is a can-do attitude in society; one that perseveres and shuns those who say (fill in significant feat here ________) can't be done. Recently, the United States elected its first African-American President, Barack Obama, in an election that inspired hope in an entire generation of Americans. The slogan he ran on, which resonated with the masses was, "Yes We Can." These people are, after all, Ameri-cans not Ameri-can'ts.

But this attitude can be problematic at times. When taken too seriously, it can blind. Suddenly, the ability to asses capabilities and obstacles becomes unimportant, and on a policy level this can lead to dangerous things. Take for example, the dangerous belief that a land war in Afghanistan can be won, or that an invasion of Iraq could be a "cakewalk."

The State Department announced yesterday that it failed to get Israel to freeze the expansion of illegal colonies in the occupied Palestinian West Bank and was no longer going to seek a freeze. This has been the cornerstone of the Obama administration's policy toward this conflict. The thinking behind it is that good faith negotiations cannot take place while Israel builds more colonies on occupied land, and any solution to Jerusalem is complicated with each Israeli colony expanding to encircle it. This was a noble approach and one that was long overdue. In fact, it was the United States' Road Map initiative, which Israel accepted in 2003, that previously called for an immediate freeze on all settlement activity.

But after 7 years of failing to get Israel to abide by Road Map obligations, which simply require it to abide by international law regarding the building of settlements, the United States has finally given up. Though, what, if anything, did the United States do during those 7 years to press the Israelis to abide by this obligation? The answer? Nothing effective.

Since the beginning of the Oslo Peace process, the United States adhered to a very strange philosophy when it came to policy regarding Israel. This philosophy was that Israel's behavior could only be changed using carrots, not sticks. As far as I know, there is no other country in the world which the United States treats this way, but this philosophy is clearly in place. Somewhere around the arrival of the Clinton administration this became the modus operendi in Washington.

The last administration to use a different approach was that of George H. W. Bush. Even though this approach didn't use sticks, it conditioned carrots and did so to a degree of efficiency. During the Yitzhak Shamir government, a right-wing Israeli government that was the counterpart to that Bush Administration, Israeli settlement building slowed significantly.

What precisely led to a change between the Bush and Clinton administrations is anyone's guess. What is more clear is that that philosophy is fundamentally flawed and that it is an empirical failure. Over the past 20 years, the number of Israeli colonists living illegally in occupied territory more than doubled, growing at a rate more than twice the pace of the rest of Israel.

Blame it on what you will - incompetence, the Israel lobby, whatever - the reality is that this failed American approach has not worked for years and needs to change. But will it? Will this abrupt moment lead the Obama administration use sticks instead of carrots? I wouldn't hold my breath.

Domestic dynamics in this country - and yes the pro-Israel lobby is a big part of that - make using sticks against Israel very costly. President Obama has never seemed weaker after his party lost significantly in a mid-term election, and he will continue to alienate his base to work with Republicans who look forward to using this against him in 2012. He certainly won't be using sticks with Israel now.

I'd love to be surprised by a stunning American turn around that uses sticks to change Israel's colonial behavior, but I am not naive enough to believe it will happen given the political realities.

So what is America to do?

Give up and admit you simply can't do it. Admit that because of America's electoral and democratic system, which we also hold dear, America is innately incapable of acting as an even-handed mediator to this conflict. I know its hard - it's hard for me to write this, especially since I truly admire the can do attitude many Americans share - but it is not helpful in this case.

Now, this doesn't mean there is no hope for peace in the Middle East. I don't think that is true at all. It simply means peace will not come as part of an American-led effort. It's time to step back so that others can try to make progress on this issue. This involves the international community playing a greater role in applying international law, but it also involves America staying out of the way.

The U.S. has kept itself at the center of this peace process by arguing only it can pressure both Israel and the Palestinians. As we've definitively learned this week, this is only half true. Anytime the UN Security Council votes on resolutions critical of Israel, more often than not, the U.S. is the only state to veto (This has happened over 40 times). If the U.S. cannot press Israel to end violations, and it cannot, then it shouldn't stand in the way of it either. It should also take steps to end any monetary or military support for Israel's on-going occupation.

As more states recognize Palestine, a message is being sent to the United States that the world has no faith in the U.S. mediation.

The U.S. has tried, the U.S. has failed, and its OK. There are many other things at which the United States excels, but its time to admit that brokering peace in the Middle East is definitely not one of them.

Share |