Netanyahu is sticking to asking Abbas for recognition that Israel is a Jewish state. It is a diversion from the real story and makes the prospects for peace more complicated. See my full analysis at http://bifocalpoint.blogspot.com/2010/09/peace-talks-and-talks-and-talks.html

Cut Israeli off completely until they comply with US demands, and pull all settlers and IDF back behind the green line .

This would result in Peace, and would reduce terror blowback against the US.The settlers would be unhappy, but who cares. Their fanatical hatred has caused so much death and suffering on all sides up til this point, their interests in the matter are utterly immaterial.

I am no expert in Middle East affairs. However, if States and Israel is serious about negotiation for peace, now is the best time. Since Hamas is in occupation and control of the Gaza Strip and West Bank is occupied by Fatah, Israel can make its best effort to negotiate with Fatah for West Bank and since Fatah has some history of negotiation, it may make sense for them to come to an agreement. If it is successful, it will a good model for Hamas to think about. By then, the problem gets smaller because the atmosphere for Hamas to negotiate is pressing. At the same time, Hamas and Fatah had split from the coaliton earlier which enable them for strategic negotiation. By then, Hamas is standing alone because West Bank has settled. It will make Hamas more isolated and the problem gets smaller if negotiation last longer. Also, if there is 2 countries, it still conformed to the UN initiated voted determination of founding a country for them. It will be easier for Israel because people traveling to each others' territory will need pastports.

In the wildest dream, you are made to be an advisor to the Indian and/or Chinese governments regarding their dispute over a large area called the Arunachal Predesh by the Indian and called South Tibet by the Chinese. Both believe they have legitimate claim to the area. The Indian believe they inherited from Britain and the Chinese had long history of claim there. Here the Chinese included the Tibetans and other racial groups. Also, there was a war over this area in 1962 with Chinese briefly occupied this area and unilaterally withdraw to leave this dispute to the later generations. What is your advise to them in resolving this disputes?

Another question?if you (all Palestinians) in the disputed area are invited to settle in China with the same amount of land in Gaza Strip and West Bank to live in the Muslim region of the Huan, or to the Xinjiang region of the Uygur, what do you say to that ? Can you give me some reason to your response?

When I realized the article wasn't shilling for the Palestinians or bashing Israel, I had to double check to make sure I was on the FP website.

How did you trick the editors into letting you publish that?

Peace and a two state solution ‘now’ are not the same thing nor are they in any way interdependent. You can have either one of them ‘now’ without necessarily having the other. A two state solution is not a solution; it is simply reshuffling the cards. Abbas knows this which explains his obvious hesitancy about the negotiations, and so does Netanyahu which is why he proposes maintaining control of all borders and airspace. It is hardly conceivable that Obama imagines otherwise but he appears to prefer to view it as a hypothetical issue to be dealt with later.

One is tempted to say that the US wants two states, but it isn’t the US because the vast majority of Americans don’t give a damn about any part of the problem and care much more about jobs, wages, gay marriage and abortion. No, it is Obama and his coterie who are pushing for two states and even he does not so much want two as seriously not want one. Plus the status quo is making for bad public relations.

We should drop the word ‘solution’ from the debate because it implies a mechanistic intervention; if you move this over there, bring that over here, press this and push that, then you will have Peace. You won’t.

Let’s try to look at this another way.

Israel has responsibility for the Palestinians since, for whatever reasons, there they are and they are prevented from going anywhere else.

The Palestinians have an untidy absence of unity that inhibits development of a coherent democratically elected authority they can all trust to represent their interests and aspirations.

It would help if the two parts were united and encouragement provided to raise ordinary standards of living with the expectation that Hamas, becoming a smaller fish in a larger pond, would grow less appealing and be allowed to wither like the IRA.

This might be achieved by creating as a first step, an autonomous Palestinian region within the disputed territories, a region the rest of the world, including Israel, can recognise, deal with, assist and encourage without having to encounter blockades and tanks

However long the process then takes, the Palestinians should achieve stability and an elected governing body with real authority to deal with other leaders.

This could provide for Peace, leaving Statehood to come later, if at all since it is anyway an antique 19th century European idea with which the Palestinian people are culturally unfamiliar and one that shouldn’t really be necessary in the 21st century.

The important matters to make such a region work are land and water and these are matters best dealt with by agronomists and experts in aquifers rather than religious zealots of whatever persuasion.

The "time" component Rosner discusses is a cover for two underlying issues that are almost never mentioned:

First, the Palestinians aren't really a people, but an invention of the Arab world for purposes of conducting their war against the Jews. Statements to this effect from among the Palestinians and by non-Palestinian Arab leaders make this abundantly clear. The evidence is overwhelming: not only can they not agree on collective goals, but they are constantly fighting with one another over everything from money to prestige. If the Palestinians were a people, the refugees would want to return to the Palestinian state, but their leaders insist that that is off the table. States can be established for peoples, even peoples that include distinct minority groups, but it is not really possible to establish a state for a collection of feuding groups that lack a collective sense of identity. Maybe time will lead to the establishment of a Palestinian people.

Second, the stumbling block in every discussion to date has been whether the agreements made would constitute an end to the conflict. Israelis understandably insist that the answer must be "yes," the Palestinians reject this out of hand. This is what really caused the collapse of the discussion in 2000. If Palestinian leaders aren't prepared to agree that the discussions are about an end to the conflict, why should the Israelis negotiate at all? Maybe time will lead the Palestinians to recognize that the answer must be "yes."

What has confused the issue is that Israel holds the physical assets, which in most other cases would mean that the Palestinians would be forthcoming to gain a settlement, but it has been Israel that has been most willing to negotiate, provided they see some prospect of a real peace. Without such a prospect, again, why should they do this?

1) The schism between Fatah/Hamas really makes this whole process a sham and a charade. If Abbas cannot negotiate for the 1.5million Pals in Gaza, then why is he even bothering with this charade? Let's say that both sides gets to the end, agreement in place, Israel ignored Hamas' attempts to derail the process with their terrorism (like yesterday's mortars on an Israeli school), and they are ready to ink a deal... How can they do that while ignoring the Gazans? Simply - Abbas cannot. He knows it, we know it...

Why the charade?

2) Fatah's continued incitement. Hell, just go to Palwatch.org and look at all of the statements inciting violence and a disapproval of the peace talks. Most Americans don't know this but I guarantee you that most Israelis do. Gee, I wonder why the Israelis do not have a lot of faith in anything that the PA says?

3) Fatah's double-speak. Just last week Abbas was quoted as saying that he will not allow any more concessions during these negotiations. So now, he cannot make concessions without harming his reputation. So...right of return? Borders? Etc? What's left to negotiate? At this point, the negotiation then is just his demands. That's not a negotiation.

Sadly, unless Obama can FORCE a deal on both sides, this is a sham and PR stunt.

For my take - I just hope that Israel does all that they can do to attempt to make a deal, so when it fails, the fault will be on the obstructionists, not the side that did not obstruct.

The time issue is a misdirection, and there is a good chance this is intentional.

The real problem is the great power imbalance between the two sides. This is aggravated by the fact that the most powerful international outsiders are firmly allied with the for more powerful party. It is almost never mentioned that a fair and legal settlement requires the same rules for both sides.

Also, Israel is a very safe place, far more so than the US, for example. Not only does Israel have all the peace it wants, it periodically wants less peace and more death. The homicide rate in Israel is roughly half that in the US, and the far higher accident death rate is also roughly half that in the US. Israel only loses more than a handful at the hands of the Palestinians when it is actively killing them. Whether or not we lump those into the homicide rate, there is no noticeable difference. Periodically, Israel decides it needs more martyrs for its expansionist cause, so it goes on a killing spree which produces the inevitable retaliation.

This is, of course, exacerbated by the press, especially in the US. Palestinian spokesman in the US press not only do not get equal time, they almost never make these obvious points. Is this because they are incapable of discussing this in terms of the principles of Western law, or is because they are censored or pressured to self censor?