Last week the Washington Post and the New York Times confirmed that the Obama administration is considering a new initiative for peace in the Middle East. Scheduled to be launched in the autumn, it comes in the wake of last month's crisis with Israel over its announcement during a visit by US Vice President Joe Biden that it intends to continue its illegal settlement expansion on occupied Palestinian land. The confrontation saw the US-Israel relationship hit a 35-year low, and clearly underscored an abysmal US failure; its inability to exact neither its most basic demand for a settlement freeze nor the resumption of peace talks. However, the humiliation of the Obama administration at the hands of Israel served to wake the US from its stupor and forced it to confront the reality of its global responsibility and the impact of an ongoing Middle Eastern conflict upon US security and interests. America has since kept up the pressure on Israel and is now apparently upping the ante further by basically giving the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority until the autumn to negotiate a solution or have one imposed on them.

In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy announced the possibility of European collaboration with the US on the autumn initiative, the details of which remain to be discussed. Following Israel's announcements last month, Sarkozy declared his country's solidarity with the US in condemning settlement expansion in occupied East Jerusalem. European involvement would follow on from French efforts on a peace deal launched in 2008 and would, presumably, be led by Sarkozy himself. However, it is debatable that he is the right man for the job. Having been beaten in the regional elections and struggling with his lowest approval ratings since 2007, his rival Dominique de Villepin is now in a position to challenge Sarkozy for the presidency. Moreover, the phenomenal media distraction surrounding his personal life has lessened his credibility as an international statesman. The idea of European involvement in a peace initiative looks like an effort by Sarkozy to rescue his political career; latching on to Obama's desire to increase international pressure for peace could offset the political obstacles he faces at home.

Obama's frustration with the lack of progress on a peace deal has led to a new sense of urgency following the emergence of a wider debate and re-assessment of US policy concerning Israel. Last month, top US military commander General David Petraeus told the Senate armed services committee that the Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the main causes of instability in the Middle East and Asia; that its continuation and the deadlock in negotiations, coupled with a perception of US favouritism toward Israel, fomented anti-American sentiment in the region; and this in turn put American soldiers' lives at risk and presented distinct challenges to America's ability to advance its own interests. As such, within the US, discussion about a resolution to the Middle East conflict is increasingly being framed in the context of US national security.

However, in his efforts to realign diplomacy on the Middle East and safeguard US interests, it is debatable whether Obama can depend on traditional US allies in Europe. Despite the courage shown by countries like Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland, the big three of Europe   namely Britain, Germany and France   show little inclination to lend their backing and assistance to a new initiative or to make way for the Northern Europeans, Sarkozy's jockeying notwithstanding. This does not, however, mean that the EU is bereft of leverage, when 35% of Israel's trade is carried out with the EU and Europe imports twice as much Israeli produce as America. This should make a formidable negotiating tool, but whether the EU has the political will to use its influence and accept its obligations and responsibilities is another matter altogether.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] is scheduled to make a final review and formal decision on Israel's application for accession. Various international organisations have expressed concerns over this based on Israel's colonisation and occupation of the Palestinian territories and its apartheid policies. It has been accused of war crimes, does not comply with international human rights and humanitarian law or even the benchmarks outlined by the OECD and adopted in 2007 which required Israel to show "commitment to pluralist democracy based on the rule of law and the respect of human rights, adherence to open and transparent market economy principles and a shared goal of sustainable development". Nevertheless, the OECD appears to be disregarding the facts and rather than putting pressure on Israel by an outright refusal until and unless reforms are made by Tel Aviv, it is effectively rewarding the Zionist state for its crimes.

What will this autumn initiative actually bring to the table that is new? According to the Washington Post and its sources, the initiative will mark a sharp turnaround in the way the US deals with the conflict; real negotiations will replace proximity talks and the excruciatingly gradual approach to peace will be replaced by real action. However, according to some sources, the plan will not differ much, if at all, from the position taken by ex-President Bill Clinton following the Camp David summit in 2000: there will be no right of return for Palestinian refugees, there will be a return to the 1967 borders with territorial swaps to allow Israel to annex major settlement blocks, any Palestinian state will be demilitarised, Jerusalem will be shared and further adjustments will be made to take into consideration the facts on the ground that have emerged over the past decade.

It is not that that such an initiative is intrinsically wrong, but the two-state solution has been laboured for decades without any innovative proposals being put forward or concrete action being taken. Since the Oslo Accords in 1993, each "new" initiative has essentially been a re-hash of the same old thing. And despite Obama's efforts, he admits to having underestimated the conflict while his advisors adhere strictly to a policy on the Middle East that doesn't allow for much deviation from Clinton's plan.

In a rare show of agreement, the Israelis and the Palestinians reject the possibility of an imposed solution, so the US proposal in the autumn gives Israel time to re-engage in the peace process; all threats and ultimatums could come to nothing. Alternatively, Israel could reject US proposals as it has no qualms about defying or humiliating its main sponsor. On the other hand, a new initiative will give Israel's right-wing coalition government under Benjamin Netanyahu the opportunity to renege on past agreements as Israeli Prime Ministers have done before him under the pretext of wiping the slate clean and starting afresh.

In principle, a new initiative backed by clear, firm policies would be welcomed and Europe needs to take the reins and help bring something new to negotiations. Any US-European initiative that does not propose a radical new approach to ensure fairness and justice and thus secure long term peace will also fail. There would have to be a clear commitment to Palestinian rights; to a state with Jerusalem as its capital; and to the right of return for Palestinian refugees. The US has got the ball rolling on the issue of settlements, now the EU must play its part by using whatever it has at its disposal to increase Israel's isolation and compel it to act according to international law. Rejection of the OECD membership bid would be a start and would send a signal from the international community that there is an unwillingness to continue to be accomplices to Israel's crimes.