For over a year, the Gaza conflict has raged on without any signs of a cease-fire. In fact, it is only escalating and moving toward a larger regional conflict. Why are diplomatic efforts failing in this crisis in the Middle East? Despite multiple mediation attempts launched by the United States and regional countries, such as Qatar and Egypt, the Gaza conflict has remained unresolved.
This raises the question of whether the United States is ineffective in persuading Israel. The answer is both yes and no. On one hand, the failure of U.S. mediation in the Middle East conflict showcases the country’s declining influence in the region. However, it could also be attributed to overuse or misuse of power. The situation clearly proves that mediation without neutrality and fairness cannot achieve success through sole reliance on power.
Why U.S. mediation fails
Following the Cold War, the United States has been the primary mediator in the Middle East, facilitating the Oslo Agreement and other plans for the region. However, because of its strong ties with Israel, the U.S. is often seen as a biased mediator. Nevertheless, its significant influence in the region makes it an essential player in resolving Middle East conflicts.
America’s power-based approach to mediation has two main components. First is its commitment to protecting Israel’s security and deterring any potential spoilers in the peace process. This protection serves as leverage for encouraging different parties to engage in mediation, while the threat of deterrence helps prevent any undermining of the peace process by adversaries. This approach can be seen in actions such as the Camp David talks in the 1970s, the Oslo Accord in the 1990s and the more recent Abraham Accord in 2020.
However, in the Gaza conflict, the America’s hard power has not been able to serve as leverage for mediation. In fact, it has become more of a hindrance due to its biased support and protection of Israel. The lack of political will, rather than a lack of power, is the root cause of this.
Given the events of Oct. 7, it is understandable that Israel would seek security assurances. However, its pursuit of the absolute destruction of Palestinian territory and its undermining of any possibility of a two-state solution go beyond reasonable measures. Furthermore, its potential invasion of Lebanon only adds to the already tense situation.
Despite all this — and because of America’s upcoming elections and political interests — the U.S. has not only failed to restrain Israel but also finds itself trapped in protecting it from threats triggered by Israel’s own aggressive actions.
The over-protection has actually fueled the sense of absolute victory. It has become increasingly clear that Israel’s pursuit of absolute security is the key barrier of to a negotiated solution to the conflict. It ignores the legitimate sovereign requests of the Palestine side. The obsession with absolute security is based on the myth of Israel’s absolute power, which to a large extent comes from America’s blind support for Israel through military aid. U.S. entrapment in protection commitment has actually established an illusion of security without peace for Israel, which decreases the attractiveness of mediation or a diplomatic solution.
Instead of providing true safety and security, the excessive protection from U.S. has only hindered any chance of mediation. Mediation would cultivate compromise between warring parties, but one party’s relentless pursuit of absolute security is the main obstacle in finding a negotiated resolution. Israel’s fixation on achieving absolute security is based on the false belief in its absolute power, largely bolstered by unwavering U.S. military aid.
Whats more, it has also undermined the credibility of escalation for deterrence. The mediation deal holds when any spoiler of the deal could get punished. However, with the biased stance of the U.S., deterrence only works toward escalation from adversaries but cannot work to deter the escalation of its key ally.
One case in point can be found in the Iran-Israel conflict, where the U.S. protected Israel wholeheartedly. It protects Israel every time Iran launches retaliation, but is unable to sanction Israel when Israel assassinates a key negotiator in Hamas or launches an attack on another country’s foreign embassy.
The mediation agreement only works when all parties involved can face consequences for violating it. However, with the U.S. showing bias towards its ally, their deterrent effect is limited to preventing escalation from their adversaries but not from their own key ally. A clear example is seen in the conflict between Iran and Israel, where the U.S. consistently supports and protects Israel from attacks from Iran while failing to take action against Israel when it launches political assassinations in Tehran or attacks Iran’s foreign consulate. As quoted by Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed Bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani, “How can mediation succeed when one side assassinates a negotiator?”
U.S., China should cooperate
It is evident that the ongoing Middle East peace crisis cannot be resolved through a military approach. U.S. diplomatic efforts will also prove futile unless America can control its unwavering military support for Israel and apply effective pressure on its ally to prioritize diplomacy. The failure of U.S. diplomatic mediation is not due to a lack of power but rather to the overuse and misuse of excessive power. Again, mediation involves both the leverage of hard power and the impartiality of soft power.
China's approach to mediation — principle-driven power — has the potential to be effective in the Middle East. Unlike other countries, China avoids using direct military leverage and instead focuses on building trust and promoting development as its form of leverage. One advantage of this approach is that it does not create alliance dilemmas or allow for misuse as a means of confrontation. For instance, when mediating between different Palestinian groups, China aims to politically empower these organizations and facilitate coordination among them. This support does not pose a risk of being used to harm Israel’s legitimate sovereignty. Similarly, China’s mediation between Saudi Arabia and Iran seeks to alleviate security concerns rather than use a third party as a common enemy.
While competition between the U.S. and China is evident in many areas of international affairs, the pursuit of peace in the Middle East should not be seen as a competition. Instead, it can serve as an arena for cooperation. Mediation is a bridge for warring parties, and China’s efforts to mediate between various Palestinian groups is a first step toward bridging the divide between Palestine and Israel. The U.S. must also take ownership of its responsibility and similarly employ its significant influence over Israel.
