A U.S. official told me one day after U.S. President Barack Obama hosted a meeting between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in New York that the demand for a total settlement freeze ahead of reviving peace talks was a "dream".
"This would bring down Netanyahu's government," the official said.
The Palestinians believed, or wanted to believe, that Obama's administration would stick to its demand for a full settlement freeze and would twist Israel's arm into complying before talks on permanent status were renewed. The international community leaders echoed Obama's demand for a total settlement freeze, but the minute the U.S. special envoy George Mitchell and his team agreed to negotiate with Israel on specifics of the settlements issue, by accepting that some construction had to continue, some can be frozen for a few months, and some simply can't be stopped, they fell in Israel's trap.
The settlements issue is no longer the key issue blocking the relaunching of the talks.
Again, the Palestinians want to avoid a clash with the U.S. administration by agreeing to meet while settlements continue.
Actually, the Palestinians are surprised by the speedy and sudden change in American officials' language towards the settlements issue.
Now they know that Barack Obama's impatience with the slow pace of talks that pave the way to final status peace talks will mean they have to accept entering new talks without a settlement freeze.
Abbas and his negotiators are now trying to go to those talks with at least agreed terms of reference, something they tried to do before the launching of the Annapolis talks in 2008, but failed.
Abbas is insisting that Israel respect the Oslo peace deals, the roadmap, the Arab peace initiative, and other past agreements so the sides don't start all over again from scratch.
That is why Palestinian negotiators are insisting that the New York meeting did not mean talks have been revived, and that is why they are seeking a written and clear agreement on the terms of reference of future talks which the U.S. is anxious to announce soon.
In his speech at the U.N. General Assembly today, Abbas urged Israel to accept all past agreements, including the Arab Peace Plan and the roadmap as clear terms o reference of any future, meaningful peace talks.
A Palestinain official said the Palestinians were disappointed with Mitchell and Obama's change of heart on the settlements issue, and they made it clear in meetings with Obama and U.S. officials in New York they seek a clear understanding on the basis of future talks because this time they want those talks to lead to the establishment of a state on all lands occupied in 1967 -- the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and in Gaza Strip.
Abbas and Netanyahu went to the New York reluctantly, each for his own reasons.
Time is running out, and with time there is less common ground between Israel under Netanyahu and the Palestinians.
There are more and more Israelis and even more Palestinains who believe that the conflict would never be resolved if left up to the two parties. Only strong pressure on Israel from its ally the U.S. could bring about a solution. Obama's determination to promptly deal with the Middle East crisis and demand for a total settlement freeze was a sign he might be different from his predecessors who tried and failed. But after failure on the settlements issue, will he also fail on setting clear terms of reference for upcoming talks? Will Obama want peace talks more than the parties themselves?
