For years now, many have been following and hoping for some sort of peace between Israel and the Palestinian masses. For many years, this "Peace" has been elusive, and the "process" has been unclear as regimes and strategy changes for both sides. Recently I came across a great analysis of the "Future Of The Peace Process" in Israel by Ramzy Baroud from Toward Freedom.
The bulk of the article seems to surround the idea that all Israeli goverments that have been in power over the last few regimes have varied little in terms of changes in the demands and process towards peace. Additionally, it implies that the PM will never concede to a divided Jerusalem (which is already split in half). It reads:
As then US president Bill Clinton propped up Barak as the Israeli leader who is most capable of delivering peace, ordinary Palestinians had little expectations, and not least because of Barak’s own bloody history. In his victory speech, Barak delineated his peace ‘vision’ to cheering Israelis: "I tell you that the time for peace has come - not peace through weakness, but peace through might and a sense of security; not peace at the expense of security but peace that will bring security. We will move quickly toward separation from the Palestinians within four security red lines: a united Jerusalem under our sovereignty as the capital of Israel for eternity, period; under no conditions will we return to the 1967 borders; no foreign army west of the Jordan River; and most of the settlers in Judaea and Samaria will be in settlement blocs under our sovereignty."
I am hard pressed to buy into all the rhetoric and left leaning(or right depending on what part of the world you are in) implications of the article, but I do agree that thus far western leaders and Israeli politicians have missed the main plight that keeps the "peace", which has been stagnant like an old tree rooted in the dead sea, from transitioning into an actual "process" that can make real "progress".