Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, spent yesterday dashing across Israel and the Palestinian Authority in an attempt to secure an “urgent and enduring” ceasefire in Lebanon and a solution to the stand-off in Gaza. This exercise in shuttle diplomacy might, at other times, have been regarded as a valuable effort to exert influence. It is, at the least, a contrast to the first Bush term when Washington was criticised for appearing unwilling to delve into the details of the Middle East conflict. Yet in certain quarters, Dr Rice is presumed to be less an “honest broker” than an advocate of “Israeli aggression”. The implication is that any deal she secures must be dubious because she and her country have the most dubious of motives.

America is often a poor manager of its image. But there are far too many in this country who are comfortable with the idea of the US as ogre. It is a self-indulgent belief founded on the supposedly reassuring notion “thankfully we are not America” or “at least we are not as bad as the Americans”.

This is not a mindset that will do anything for those who need to see a durable end to the violence in the Middle East, least of all for Israelis and the Lebanese themselves. The simple fact remains, as is recognised by governments throughout the region, that the United States is the only outside force with a chance of shaping a settlement that will last for any significant period. Dr Rice is an adept performer who has a strong sense of the politically possible. She is there to explore peace and not to encourage war. Still, shooting the mediator has become a team sport.

A similarly crude and simplistic attitude has been displayed after the apparent collapse of the Doha round of world trade talks in Geneva on Monday. The EU, in particular, rushed to portray this deadlock as the unique consequence of US “intransigence” on the matter of agriculture. Yet it is Brussels that has been most reluctant to accept cuts in subsidies that impoverish the developing world. Washington certainly deserves no bonus points for intransigence but nor does it deserve all the blame.

The truth is that if Doha has failed, then it will be because several of the leading players were not prepared to be sufficiently imaginative. Countries as diverse as France and India have politically significant agricultural sectors, which they were determined to protect, even at the price of increased prosperity elsewhere.

To lapse into a blame-game would, once again, serve no one, particularly the poor of the planet, who would be the primary beneficiaries of a bargain. Trade talks are the ultimate example of brinkmanship and to declare these to be “dead” is unduly fatalistic. There is a window of opportunity between the US mid-term elections in November and the French presidential and parliamentary ballots next spring. It is one that has to be seized and this in turn requires the right spirit. Sigmund Freud condemned America as “a mistake, a giant mistake”. He was wrong. Visceral anti-Americanism is a giant mistake.