Ami Ayalon despises the Israeli peace camp as incompetents whose arrogant self-righteousness has needlessly alienated a substantial portion of the population. God knows what he thinks of its American counterpart.

He supports a two-state solution in which the Palestinians give up the right of return. At least a third of Israelis are opposed. Among the Arabs opposition is much higher, with more than a third opposing not only the two state solution but anything other than total destruction of Israel and expulsion of its Jews. These "extremists" of both sides are armed to the teeth and far more motivated than the moderates.

Ayalon, and others including Benny Morris, have correctly analyzed the problem; a military solution is more and more likely to be horrifically destructive, not just to the immediate participants but to much of the world.

The Obama administration seeks to force a solution on the Israelis, claiming that a two-state solution can work if properly structured and backed up by international guarantees. But the latter are worthless, particularly since both he and the previous Bush administration began by renouncing such commitments made by their predessesors.

So many, many Israelis see the Americans as trying to force them to play the role of pre WWII Czeckeslovakia, which they refuse to do. Rosenberg isn't worried about this, claiming the situation in Israel is analogous to America of the 1950's and '60s. But I see it as analogous to America of the 1850's and '60s. In other words Israel will collapse into civil war is the Americans put serious pressure on it.

Americans are tired of all this crap about Israel! If Israel wants to act like a spoiled child, we should just cut them loose--no more money, no more weapons, no more vetoes. We do not OWE Israel anything.

There may be progress here, but it is hard to tell from these brief comments what Mitchell's mission is.

A notable statement from Mitchell:

It's important that there is a building of institutions and governmental capacity so that at an early time there can be an independent and viable Palestinian state.

This statement picks up on the a passage from the Cairo speech:

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.

I would say there is a worrying interpretation of these statements, and also a more hopeful interpretation.

The worrying reading: The administration essentially accepts Israel's long contention that they do not have a partner for peace, and that negotiations on a final status cannot occur until the Palestinians have first created a unified polity and the capacity to govern, even before possessing a state, and have formally accepted all of the "responsibilities" established by the international community, even while Israel continues to occupy Palestinian territory and refuses to accept its own responsibilities. This polity must include Hamas, but cannot exist until Hamas does A, B and C first.

If this is what Obama and Mitchell are up to, I would say the approach sets up a number of potential delays and roadblocks that the Israelis can easily exploit, and is another effort to blame the victim, and put all the onus on Palestinians for the occupation and colonization of their territory by Israel. The notion that a people must already posses a fully-functioning and unified virtual state before they are granted an actual territorial state is unrealistic, given the dynamic and evolving processes by which states usually come into existence.

The more hopeful reading: Obama has decided to move forward aggressively with final status negotiations on the formation of a Palestinian state, and wants to assemble the Palestinian government quickly, and on the fly, as the process is forcefully driven forward.

As I have argued in the past, I do not believe that a settlement can be achieved by yet another process of negotiations toward an undefined outcome. The international community, and the US, need to make a strong and clear statement about where these two states are expected to stand. What is Israel and what is not Israel? Where is Palestine and where isn't Palestine? Those are the questions. The powers that be - not the contending parties - need to stop fudging, dodging and passing the buck, and finally speak to this question.

18 of the 34 comments in this thread are posted by ordinary. Does he or she really deserve this much band width? I think the right wing likudniks should be free to post here, but why let them dominate the comments?