New hope for peace process

All of these and many other comments leave little room for optimism. Yet Xinhua did find a surprising source of hope following the Netanyahu speech, especially when they talked about a peace process instead of peace.

"One should not dismiss the speech totally," said Mohammed Dajani, a political scientist and the founder of the Islamic organization Wasatia Palestine.

"Netanyahu came a long way from where he was but he is still far from where he should be," he said.

He believed Netanyahu was merely establishing his bargaining position and that the Palestinians have done the same. He argued there is plenty of room for the sides to sit together immediately under American tutelage. Washington's role would be "to bridge the gaps."

That analysis fits hand in glove with current American policy.

For now, even if in public at least, the two sides seem as far apart as ever, but Washington's promise that talks will begin within weeks seem to be a near possibility.

The White House is talking positively.

"To me, it's a matter of weeks, not many months," US envoy George Mitchell told reporters this week.

The United States and its international facilitating partners for negotiations in the International Peace Quartet, namely Russia, the United Nations and the European Union, have entered a stage of discussions on how to bring the sides together and create the momentum needed for them to enter serious talks.

Washington expects peace talks will resume very soon and publicly at least. Obama is hinting he sees a Palestinian state as a real possibility within this administration's first term in office.

None of the experts who spoke with Xinhua took the possibility of new peace process out of table, but they have their own thoughts on where the process should go and few think it will be quite as easy as Obama's spin-doctors may be suggesting.

According to Sneh, the way to cut through two of these is very simple. The Israelis must give up on their desire to retain eastern Jerusalem as part of an unified Israeli capital, while the Palestinians must resign themselves to the fact that their refugees will not be allowed to live in Israel.

Both of these are highly significant suggestions.

Israelis and Jews see Jerusalem as theirs. It has been a central theme of religious prayers for at least 2,000 years. However, the eastern section of the city, both urban and rural is occupied according to the international community and is Arab dominated.

While the Israeli right wants to see the city unified under Israeli control, doves argue there is no point in Israel clinging on to eastern Jerusalem, which, if nothing else, adds to the demographic threat to the nature of the Jewish state.

Likewise, there is recognition in the Palestinian National Authority that the right of return is something of a pipe dream and will never be a part of a final-status agreement. Those refugees seeking return would have to settle in any future Palestinian state, despite the fact that many Palestinians say they still hold the keys and documents of ownership to their properties in modern Israel.

The refugee issue should not be paired off with Jerusalem, but rather with the settlements issue, suggested Dajani, who is also a professor of political science at Al-Quds University in eastern Jerusalem.

These are the types of discussions, differences and proposals being brought to the fore in academic and diplomatic circles at the moment, but they are all taking giant leaps forward.

(Xinhua News Agency June 19, 2009)