Mid-East peace deal

With no immediate signs of progress following his latest visit to the Middle East last week, Mitchell announced that, should the Israelis and Palestinians finally agree to direct talks, he would issue the two sides a deadline to reach an agreement in a bid to save the stalled peace process.

The Israelis and Palestinians have been at an impasse since the last round of direct negotiations between the two sides collapsed in December 2008 after Israeli troops invaded the Gaza Strip in a bid to halt Palestinian rocket fire aimed at Israeli towns.

The two sides eventually agreed to indirect negotiations in March of this year, almost eighteen months since the short but devastating war reduced much of Gaza to rubble. But hopes that these indirect talks would lead to direct negotiations and the reviving of the US-brokered "roadmap to peace" were shattered by Israel's announcement that it would build 1,600 settler homes in East Jerusalem.

Indirect talks resume but no face-to-face discussions yet

After increasing pressure from the United States and a round of shuttle diplomacy from Mitchell, the US managed to persuade the Palestinians to return to the indirect discussions structure after extracting a pledge from Israel that the settlement project would be frozen. The indirect talks began again on May 9 and Mitchell has since held talks with both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas.

However, with pressure building on the US to get the two sides talking face to face, Mitchell has yet to receive a green light from either leader in regard to the start of direct negotiations despite shuttling between Washington, Jerusalem and Ramallah in an attempt to bring the parties together through what he has called a series of "proximity talks."

"At the moment, direct negotiations are still far away," Muriel Asseburg, the head of the Research Division for the Middle East and Africa at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, told Deutsche Welle. "Also, it seems that the US administration has not yet taken a decision as to how intensive their engagement in the peace process will eventually be."

"In any case, a deadline in itself will by no means be enough to get to a peace deal," she added. "It would need to be complemented by a bridging proposal, a very consistent and forceful US mediation or arbitration role and clear incentives and disincentives for the parties to comply."

Deadlines and time frames had been set before, only to be rendered meaningless later. "In the end, the international community has never forcefully pushed the parties to stick to the time frames agreed upon", said Asseburg. "Against this background, in view of the positions of the parties being very far apart, as well as due to domestic constraints in the US, I do not expect the US to adopt such an approach."

Israeli settlements still a barrier to peace

Away from his dealings with Mitchell, President Abbas recently told reporters that progress towards an agreement depends on the Israelis while revealing that he intended to visit Washington, probably in June, to try to advance the peace process.

Despite the current Jewish settlement project remaining on hold, the Palestinians are still not satisfied that the issue – among the most contentious in the efforts to achieve a peace deal – is resolved.

"In general, the right of return of Palestinian refugees and control over Jerusalem are the most divisive topics," Asseburg said. "But the current leaderships are also far apart with regards to territory. For example, Netanyahu has been insisting that the Jordan valley remain controlled by Israel. That is not acceptable for the Palestinians as it would prevent access to valuable agricultural land and water and it would not allow a viable Palestinian State to come into being – rather Israel would remain in control of all of the State's borders."

Israel, which captured East Jerusalem in 1967 and later annexed it in a move not recognised by the international community, considers the Holy City its "eternal and indivisible" capital while the Palestinians see East Jerusalem as the capital of their promised state.

As well as the dispute over land rights, the Palestinians have been angered by events stemming from the settlement issue. During their last meeting earlier this month, Abbas gave Mitchell a number of letters of protest against the killing of a Palestinian teenager in the West Bank, allegedly by an Israeli settler, and the killing of an elderly farmer in Gaza by the Israeli military near the heavily guarded border.

But divisions closer to home are also playing their part in keeping President Abbas from committing to direct talks with Israel.

"There are huge problems on the Palestinian side," Fawaz Gerges, a Middle East expert at Department of International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science, told Deutsche Welle. "Hamas has made it clear that President Abbas does not have a mandate to represent the Palestinians or sign any agreement in their name. Unless Hamas is included in the talks, Abbas will be unable to conclude a binding agreement with the Israelis."

Netanyahu offers incentives but rejects construction freeze

Israel, meanwhile, has yet to announce a total freeze on Israeli settlement building with Netanyahu and other officials announcing recently that settlement construction would continue in annexed Arab East Jerusalem. However, Israel has reportedly offered the Palestinians a package of goodwill gestures in their own attempt to keep the roadmap alive.

The gestures are said to include the release of prisoners, the lifting of some more roadblocks in the West Bank and the expansion of those parts of the territory under limited Palestinian self-rule. Reports also suggest that Israel plans to free up land currently allocated to settlements for a road linking a large-scale planned Palestinian community to the West Bank political capital of Ramallah.

However, Gerges believes that Israel's dedication to the settlement plan and its attitude towards the Palestinians will hamper any attempts to bring the two sides together.

"The indirect talks will unlikely produce any concrete results," he said. "The divide between the two camps is too huge to bridge. Israel's right-wing governing coalition does not subscribe to a settlement based on a two-state solution as understood by the international community."

"While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu paid lip service to a Palestinian state, neither he nor his allies on the far right would accept the creation of a viable Palestinian state," he added. "They also do not take Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas very seriously and view him as politically impotent and weak. The Likud-led coalition will not compromise on occupied East Jerusalem and freeze settlement construction. Netanyahu has already made it clear that building additional housing units in the area will continue."

Experts lament impasse and lack of US understanding

Middle East experts continue to look at the situation with some concern and lament not only the unwillingness of Israel and the Palestinians to reopen dialogue but the approach of the United States to the problems which divide them.

"To date, the Obama administration has not unveiled a clear strategy of how to go about to achieving a peace deal," Asseburg said. "My suspicion is that, while the administration sees the importance of solving the Middle East conflict, such a strategy does indeed not exist."

"I don't have hope of negotiations leading to a constructive outcome as long as they are not based on clear terms of reference and are consistently and forcefully seen through by the US administration and backed by the Middle East Quartet," she concluded. "The two sides are just two far apart, the power asymmetries too stark and both leaderships to weak for them to come to terms on their own without international arbitration."

Author: Nick Amies

Editor: Michael Knigge