With his granite jaw and athlete’s handshake, John Kerry was hailed in 2012 as the “living embodiment of America” who could bring almost presidential gravitas to the office of secretary of state. Unlike his predecessor Hillary Clinton, successful in her own way as a global humanitarian and standard-bearer of American values, Mr Kerry would actually get things done. Before Mr Kerrry took office, the commentator James Traub declared: “The man looks and acts more like a secretary of state than anyone since George Marshall.”
Marshall set post-war Europe back on its feet in 1948 with a generous aid programme remembered to this day as the Marshall Plan. Mr Kerry is trying to heal the Middle East, with a three-way effort: to end the Israel-Palestine dispute, reach a political settlement in Syria and strike a nuclear deal with Iran.
With this back-breaking agenda now in serious trouble, the former athlete is now portrayed in Washington as something of a loser. Aaron David Miller, a former State Department official, describes Mr Kerry as a “lonely man” – perhaps the only one who still believes that Israeli and Palestinian claims can be resolved with a two-state solution.
The New York Times website chose a picture of Mr Kerry looking pained, with his hand to his forehead, during a grilling on Tuesday from the US Senate foreign relations committee. In an unusually harsh session, John McCain, the Republican who lost the 2008 presidential election to Barack Obama, taunted Mr Kerry by suggesting he was facing defeat on all three of his Middle Eastern efforts. The Palestinian talks, Mr McCain said, were “finished”.
Mr Kerry shot back with a brave and unexpected allocation of blame for the crisis in negotiations. While both sides were guilty of unhelpful actions, it was Israel that had precipitated the impasse. The government of prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu had failed to meet a deadline for releasing 26 Palestinian prisoners and then the Israeli housing minister, Uri Ariel, chose to announce 700 new housing units in Gilo, a settlement built on Palestinian land in the West Bank that has been incorporated into Jerusalem.
“That was the moment,” Mr Kerry said. In response to the Israeli actions, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President, then revived his bid for statehood by applying to join 15 international treaties and conventions.
The crisis is hardly a surprise. There is no conceivable Israeli government that would willingly agree to terms acceptable to the Palestinians. Nor, with the Palestinian movement split, is Mr Abbas strong enough to agree to compromises acceptable to Mr Netanyahu.
Mr Kerry’s laying the blame on Israel is in direct contrast to President Bill Clinton who, after the failure of the Camp David peace negotiations in 2000, pointed the finger of blame at the then Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat. You have to go back to 1990 to find a US administration that was ready to crack the whip at an Israeli government for refusing to come to the negotiating table. Washington withheld $10 billion (Dh36.7bn) of loan guarantees that the then prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir, needed to build homes for new immigrants.
American financial sanctions are not on the cards now. Israel is a much richer country. The events of the past week have, however, changed the calculus of the negotiations. What is at stake is not success or failure, but who gets the blame for the eventual collapse.
The European Union has made it clear than the collapse of the talks over the building of Jewish settlements would lead to trade sanctions. One third of Israel’s trade is with the EU, and the European countries are prepared to ban the sale of settlement products.
In Washington, the blame game is heating up. While Congress can be relied on to support Mr Netanyahu in whatever he does, other voices are trying to lead Mr Kerry into ever more explicit criticism of Israel. A posting on the Politico website by six Washington luminaries including Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser, called on Mr Kerry to talk and act more forcefully with Israel. Success depended not on the good will of the parties but on “the strength of America’s political leverage and its determination to use it”.
Washington should no longer describe the building of settlements as “unhelpful” – giving the impression that it accepted them – but insist on suspending negotiations until Israel halted construction on occupied land. Mr Netanyahu’s attempts to annexe more Palestinian territory should be opposed as strongly as Vladimir Putin’s seizure of Crimea.
Mr Netanyahu will not be quaking at the words of some retired senior officials. But apart from the messianic political parties, Israel will not relish further isolation. Life will be easier for the Israeli government if the peace talks are kept on life support, even if neither side actually believes they are leading anywhere.
The diplomats of the world’s major powers will agree. If the two-state solution is proved to be impossible, then all that is left is a single state of Israelis and Palestinians – a concept for which no one has a road map. Continuing Israeli-Palestinian talks on a two-state solution act as a short-term tranquilliser.
Mr Kerry cannot be faulted for tackling all the intractable issues of the Middle East. This is his last chance for greatness, for unlike Hillary Clinton he is not saving himself for a shot at the presidency. His tactics may be questionable – perhaps he should indeed have been tougher on the Israelis at the start. The timing is hardly helpful, with the major Arab states consumed with internal issues and regional rivalries that have eclipsed the Palestine cause.
In the end, Mr Kerry’s problem is that he is the servant of a weakening America and an administration that shrinks from using force abroad, as clearly shown in its handling of the Syrian civil war. If Mr Kerry is indeed the living embodiment of America, it is a country whose global punch is much reduced since the days of George Marshall.
Alan Philps is a commentator on global affairs
On Twitter: @aphilps
