Last month in Washington DC, at an Aspen Institute forum on U.S. national security interests in the Middle East, an Arab diplomat publicly urged the necessity that “the United States should be perceived throughout as an honest broker that takes no sides.” But how can the United States be an honest broker if it favors Israel? Shouldn't it be impartial instead? There is much confusion in the world about the meaning of the term “honest broker” and about what is required of the United States to play that part. Who needs an honest broker anyway? Can't the adversaries make peace without the intervention of a third party? Theoretically a deal can be reached by the parties in conflict without anyone else butting in. Most bilateral peace accords are reached not between equals but between stronger and weaker parties. Usually one side has defeated or repelled the other. Then they sit down to negotiate the terms of the new order. Negotiations between Israel and her Arab neighbors have not followed this pattern. Although the power differential is obvious between Israel on one side and Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine on the other, a negotiation between these parties will not be that of victor and vanquished. The precedent established by Jimmy Carter at Camp David was that the United States will underwrite peace between Israel and her neighbors. Call it a payoff; call it a bribe; call it financing an agreement. Begin and Sadat understood that their two countries would be handsomely rewarded by the United States for making peace. Those billion dollar plus payments to both countries, initially scheduled for only three years, have continued now for more than three decades. The U.S. is interested in peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It is also interested in being seen as the party that makes that peace possible. To be known as the president who finally brings peace to the Middle East will provide bragging rights for life. And the U.S. administration that succeeds in that endeavor will reap a huge bonus on the diplomatic scene, gaining increased respect, credibility, and clout around the world, particularly in the Middle East and with Muslim-majority countries from Morocco to Indonesia. Americans in the room: the pro's and con's If Israel and one or more of her Arab neighbors proceed to make peace without the benefit of U.S. presence in the room, they may lose out on peace dividends from Uncle Sam. The prospect of receiving one or two or three billion dollars per annum cannot be lightly dismissed. Let those Americans get the kudos for the deal, Israeli and Arab leaders might say to themselves, while we take home the cash. That may seem cynical, but it reflects the precedent that the United States itself established in 1978 with Egypt and Israel. Besides the financial incentive for bringing the U.S. into the negotiating room, there are other reasons why both sides want the Americans there. The leaders of the P.A. know that the only outsiders who Israeli politicians and negotiators will listen to are the Americans. However, they mistakenly think that the White House can not only pressure but also “deliver” Israel, forcing it to sign off on conceding east Jerusalem to Palestine, to dismantle settlements in east Jerusalem as well as in the West Bank, and to take back a significant number of refugees, whether Israel likes it or not. Palestinians hope that they can negotiate primarily with the Americans who will then lean on the Israelis to agree. The Israelis, though leery of the Obama administration's pushing them into taking a deal they don't want, also need the Americans in order to galvanize European, Russian, Chinese, regional Arab and global Muslim support for whatever deal they strike. The Palestinians are constrained in their negotiating positions, particularly with regards to Jerusalem, as to how to cut a deal with the Israelis without losing the support of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. The American president can work the phones and try to drum up support or at least blunt opposition to a deal with Israel. Of course, there is also a downside to American involvement. If and when Palestinian-Israeli negotiations reach an impasse, the Palestinians, who are clearly the weaker party, anticipate that the Americans will introduce bridging proposals more favorable to them than the Israelis' positions. This prospect of a better deal being offered by the Americans creates a disincentive for the Palestinians to moderate their positions prior to U.S. intervention. The Israelis, knowing this, are less likely to be forthcoming in their offers as well. Partially counteracting this dynamic is the memory of the Clinton parameters, which offered both sides a mixed bag of the palatable and the unpalatable. Waiting for American bridging proposals to emerge is a dangerous game to play. The Obama-Clinton-Mitchell team is less predictable than were the players in the last two administrations. No one knows for sure what the new team might put on the table or how much pressure would then be applied to Israelis and Palestinians to accept the American proposals, however distasteful they might be. What is an “honest broker”? How can the appropriate role for the United States in Middle East peace negotiations best be characterized? Is “honest broker” the right term? Its first usage can be traced back to the Congress of Berlin in 1878, when German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck brought together representatives of the Great Powers of Europe and the Ottoman Empire to settle the Balkan question in the wake of the latest Russo-Turkish war. In Bismarck's own words, “I don't picture to myself a peace-mediator playing the part of an arbitrator… but a more modest one, something like that of an honest broker [ehrlicher Makler] who really wants to transact business.” A broker is a business person, someone “who really wants to transact business” and who is remunerated for services rendered. If you've ever worked with real estate agents or brokers, then you know they are anything but impartial or disinterested parties, even when they are honest. A commission-based broker only makes money if the deal goes through. The richer the deal, the more money the broker makes. So it is in the broker's best interest to promote closing a deal. Despite what he or she may say to clients, the broker's financial interest is never identical to the interests of the buyer or the seller. An honest broker is a deal-promoter and a deal-closer, not an impartial judge and not a disinterested party. America's Interests The United States has its own interests in the Middle East, which are not identical to those of the Israelis or the Palestinians, though there are significant overlaps. It is in America's national interest that the Palestinian problem go away, disappear one way or another, cease being a rallying-cry for terrorists, radicals, and Islamists, stop being a destabilizing factor in the Middle East, quit being a bone of contention between Arab and Muslim governments and the United States. A resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would also allow the United States to improve its image at the United Nations and more broadly in the international community, particularly in developing countries. And for those few in the U.S. government who still back a global democracy agenda, the development of Palestine as a viable secular democratic state would be a major boost to the cause of democracy in the Arab world. In addition to its interest in resolving or at least defusing the Palestinian problem, the nited States has a long-standing commitment to the security of the state of Israel, a commitment which is strong enough to outlast the policies of any particular president. But, quite naturally, the U.S. government cares less about the particular shape of the Jewish state than does the government of Israel. Whether east Jerusalem and Ma'aleh Adumim or Ariel and Qiryat Arba are part of Israel or Palestine doesn't really matter and shouldn't really matter to the U.S., as long as those pieces of real estate don't become the cause for another war. Matters of vital concern to Palestinians and Israelis may not be vital to Americans. The American interest is to get the matter settled once and for all. The Palestinians and the Israelis deeply care how it is settled. Despite the many positive attributes of America as an honest broker, neither Israelis nor Palestinians should fully trust that broker. Each party, after all, has its own distinct interests. Those who call for America to be impartial or “even-handed” in the negotiations are voices crying in the wilderness. America is not a neutral party in the Middle East. Annually it gives hundreds of millions of dollars to the Palestinian Authority and, through USAID, millions more are directed to numerous programs and projects in the West Bank and Gaza. But it gives close to three billion dollars a year to Israel and maintains the closest of working relationships with Israel's foreign policy, defense and intelligence establishment. Israel and the U.S. are strategic allies. The P.A. and the U.S. are not. There is no comparison between the depth and breadth of the American-Israeli relationship and the American-Palestinian relationship. Even though many Arabs and other supporters of Palestine would like to see the two sets of relationships placed on an equal footing, that will not happen. It would be a surreal development indeed and a denial of a sixty-year history for the United States to act impartially in its honest broker role with Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. The alternative is not for the U.S. and Israel to gang-up on the PA or for the U.S. to act as Israel's advocate. Again, each party has different interests, and though America's interests are heavily weighted in favor of Israel, skillful American diplomats can play many useful roles in encouraging compromise, finding creative solutions to help protect both sides' vital interests, and lining up the political and financial support the two sides will need in order to make painful concessions for peace. What makes a broker an honest broker is forthrightness and the absence of lying and deceit. An honest broker doesn't make promises he can't keep. He doesn't misrepresent the property in question. He doesn't exaggerate the benefits of the deal or diminish the difficulties faced by the parties. Rather, he acknowledges his own interests in the outcome. He makes full disclosure. He doesn't pretend that he's impartial or disinterested. He helps the parties see their way through to a meeting of the minds. As a player in the process, he facilitates the parties in reaching agreement. For America to pretend that it is a neutral party in efforts at Middle East peace-making when it clearly is not would be to play the part of a dishonest broker. The world already contains far too many of those. ** To read more from Michael Lame, check out his rethinkme.org blog BM
