The problem, as usual, with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is that Israel only talks to "moderate" Palestinians; and yet Israel also knows that without involving Hamas and opening Gaza there will be no peace.

But President Barack Obama is going to try. He has invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin ‘Bibi' Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to Washington D.C. for peace talks. They will be accompanied by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordanian monarch King Abdullah.

Mubarak and Abdullah are as ready as ever to show support for the peace process to avoid potential disapproval of their autocratic military regimes. They are the only two neighbouring Arab states to have made peace with Israel, so their motivations to stay in the good graces of the United States are obvious.

The political line-up is expected. The topic of peace is perennial. The timing in the Middle East is crucial since it coincides with the end of US combat operations in Iraq, which some commentators claim is a sign of Obama's audacity. But one could also say that it's not ambitious enough.

If Obama were truly audacious, he would have included Hamas in the negotiations because Gaza is a key component to peace with Israel and to cooperation with Egypt. Moreover, Hamas was elected as the legitimate Palestinian authority when it officially won the January 2006 legislative elections.

Instead, some Swiss and Scandinavian negotiators are said to be testing the waters with Hamas in Gaza; and the West Bank pro-Western Palestinian technocrat regime, led by Abbas and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in Ramallah is being endorsed internationally as the better partner for peace with Israel.

Parameters

The world now expects to see a Palestinian state emerge in the West Bank rather than in Gaza, but the two must go together, along with occupied East Jerusalem. The parameters were set in the Agreement on Movement and Access (AMA), signed by Israel and the Palestinians regarding the subsequent steps of Israel's "disengagement" from Gaza in the summer of 2005.

The AMA stipulates: opening the Rafah border with Egypt, reconstructing Rafah International Airport, upgrading the Gaza sea ports, opening a safe passage from Gaza to the West Bank, and easing the Israeli border posts in the West Bank. But there's no talk of the AMA any more.

The focus is as always on Israel's sacred security. If Israel makes a move toward peace, it may receive additional arms from the US to compensate for security assets that would be lost if the Israeli occupation forces were to withdraw from the West Bank.

Israel has never made a single concession to the Palestinians and "arms-for-peace" equals bribery.

In A Peace Plan Within Our Grasp (The New York Times, August 31, and re-published by Gulf News on September 2), Mubarak also asserted: "Egypt believes that the presence of an international force in the West Bank, to be stationed for a period to be agreed upon by the parties, could give both sides the confidence and security they seek." Notice the title: "a peace plan", not ‘peace'.

Big warning

And big warning about "an international force": the US is pulling out of Iraq, so they will hopefully not consider deploying to the West Bank, but Israel would not accept any other country to send troops, except for maybe the Europeans, who are always willing to engage in conflict management. Even Brussels though would be reluctant since they would be seen as doing Israel's dirty work in going from house-to-house looking for Palestinian resistance fighters.

When discussing a possible international force in Gaza, the ‘inspection' clause is also present. Israel is more worried about what comes out of the Palestinian territories, than what goes in, hence the wall, electric fences, and surveillance blimps. And then there is terminology: Hamas may accept an international naval mission monitoring Palestinian waters off the coast of Gaza, but an "international force" is a direct threat and thus a potential target.

Meanwhile, excluded from negotiations, Hamas claimed responsibility for the killing of four Jewish colonisers in Hebron last week, thus reverting to the means of violence, shortly after the Jewish Rabbi, Ovadia Yosef, claimed in a Shabbat sermon that he wishes the Palestinians would just die.

Releasing human evils, the hope remains that Obama has a back-channel open with Hamas, besides Egypt. If not, there will be no real breakthrough. Another cycle of useless violence will ensue, plus vacation for some — Egypt has already offered to host the next round of talks at a Red Sea resort.

As a ‘New Dawn' is announced in Iraq, talks in Washington must at least put an end to Jewish colony growth in the West Bank, but as we wait for such a simple step towards peace and for the Israeli occupation to end, the long twilight continues in Palestine.

Stuart Reigeluth is editor of Revolve magazine.