Read more: Israeli official: Palestinians purposely stymied talks | The Times of Israel
Read more: Countering US narrative, some Israeli sources insist PM negotiated sincerely | The Times of Israel

Whether the Israeli PM was sincere or not, these negotiations had always been prone to so much misinterpretation, wishful thinking and even deliberate sabotage that anything of a positive nature was most unlikely to emerge. The backgrounds and positions taken by all sides were such that no agreement could ever come to light,  the process itself being seriously biased towards failure right from the very start.

And therein lies the problem.

Over the years and even decades, all attempts to obtain resolution in the matter have been defeated. And this is because of one fundamental flaw, a deficiency that appears time and time again. Neither of the two principals here can begin to place wholehearted trust in any type of peace initiative, not until they are confident enough of each other’s true intentions and ambitions for the future. And that future is held hostage by the past and the fears generated there in what has been a history of conflict and hatred stretching back across generations.

When such fears can be addressed and in a manner sufficiently robust for them to achieve manageable proportions, only then will prospects for peace rise to confront a situation long deemed impossible to rectify.

A strong and lasting partnership between those in contention here is the single, most vital requirement for peace. But circumstances have always promoted division and made entry into any such arrangement a virtual impossibility. Thus it is that no partners can be found in each other, nothing that will command the forbearance and goodwill of the opposite camp. And so, if this remains the case, there will never be peace.

Then can a different form of partnership be entered into, one where trust and confidence transcend and defy all those limitations born of previous eras and mindsets?

www.laxiankey.com – ‘ for those of us with better things to do.’

If mutual trust cannot be established in the conventional manner, then creating it as two separate entities, each independent of the other, may very well be the next best thing.

And, for now, this looks very much like being the only ‘next best thing.’