It is a sign of how far the peace process has retrogressed that the Israelis and Palestinians have now entered into proximity talks, more than 16 years after having started direct negotiations.
To make matters worse, nobody – including the actual participants – gives the latest round of talks the slightest chance of success. In fact, many fear that failure will only bolster critics of the peace process by further displaying the ineffectiveness of its methods.
So why are they entering negotiations to begin with?
The answer is that the international community, led by the Americans, has been unable to extricate itself from the failed paradigm of bilateral negotiations.
Over the years, this strategy has been adopted as a given without alternative, disregarding the basic imbalance of power between the two parties.
Politically, economically and militarily, Israel is by far the stronger party, not to mention its extremely close relationship with the central mediator involved in brokering a peace deal, the United States. Furthermore, unlike Israel's past negotiations with Egypt and Jordan, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is one of an occupier and the occupied, with the latter commanding very little actual leverage.
Negotiations under these conditions are bound to fail. Israel will never want to give up enough because it does not need to, and for political and historical reasons the Palestinians cannot afford to accept the pittance they are being offered.
What is needed today is a new method of solving this conflict that is capable of breaking the current deadlock while taking better account of the actual politics at play.
Alternatives have already manifested on the ground, such as Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's plan to establish the institutions of a Palestinian state by August 2011. Although this "third way" (distinct from armed struggle and bilateral negotiations) has received a ringing endorsement from the international community, it is not an end in itself and must be complemented with an overall settlement to the conflict.
Barack Obama has already floated the ideas of holding an international conference or providing an American-imposed plan on the final-settlement issues (borders, Jerusalem, refugees etc) if the proximity talks fail to produce any results.
Regardless, the desire for a new approach is palpable as parties beyond the United States are pushing to take a more active role.
Given the political realities of today, the conflict needs a multilateral approach, which would be beneficial in several ways. First of all, not only do more parties carry more clout, but a single mediator can easily be constrained by its own domestic politics, as the United States clearly has been.
Second, opening up the conflict to multilateral mediation would probably incorporate international law, which has been largely neglected in this conflict. Most of the major points of contention – including Israeli settlements, borders and Palestinian refugees – can all be solved within the context of international law.
At the very least, the basic structure of a Palestinian state can be established according to international law and previous UN resolutions, while leaving the finer points to be negotiated between two independent states. Land trade-offs, security, water resources, even the resolution to the refugee situation – whether to afford full rights, a symbolic return, or compensation – can be discussed once international law is applied.
For example, it is understandable that some may not want to jeopardise the Jewish character of the state of Israel by affording a full return of Palestinian refugees to that territory. But if a judgment is rendered according to international law on the crime of displacement of those refugees, then a just compensation can be awarded to them that stands within the political interests of the two states.
If one side refuses to accept such a solution, then the international community should take appropriate action to put real and sustained pressure on them through sanctions. Israel does not have the right to disqualify such a move, for Israel itself is partly the result of an imposed solution by the United Nations to partition the land in 1947. At that time, the majority of the population was Palestinian Arab whose desires were disregarded by the newly formed United Nations. It is only right that the state of Palestine comes into being under similar auspices.
Moreover, throughout Israel's entire existence it has fought against the idea of a Palestinian state. From 1948 until 1993 the Israelis refused to even acknowledge the Palestinians, let alone their independent political aspirations distinct from the rest of the Arab world. The Israeli prime minister, Golda Meir, famously told the Sunday Times in 1969: "There is no such thing as a Palestinian people."
Not until 2009 had the political leadership in Israel ever publicly called for a Palestinian state. And the leader that declared such a need, Binyamin Netanyahu, was by most accounts acquiescing to outside pressures. Given this history, how then can negotiations with Israel be absolutely necessary for the establishment of a Palestinian state?
The solution to this problem, which has been drawn out for 62 years, should be imposed by a consensus from the international body now responsible for solving this conflict, the Quartet on the Middle East , within the context of international mediation.
Front Page Features