To use the current Washingtonian cliche, we have seen this movie before: Israel and the Palestinians sitting down together again to talk about peace.

The punditocracy consensus ranges from skepticism to outright cynicism.

Why will this new round of talks end differently from decades of attempted negotiations between the two—in failure?

Time Magazine greets us with a cover story titled “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace,” which tells how Israelis are now very prosperous, haven’t been suicide-bombed in a long time and believe that the wall of separation in the West Bank is keeping most of the undesirables out. Karl Vick’s story suggests most Israelis seem resigned to an existence of on-going, low-level warfare that simply heats up every so often—as when missiles are launched from Gaza.

Other polls tell us that Israel has moved farther and farther to the right, that a new majority considers itself religious rather than secular as in the past, and that they don’t really want that elusive two-state solution anymore. Some reports tell us there is significant support for expelling the Arab citizens who have been living and voting in Israel since the state was created in 1948.

Barack Obama’s ratings in Israel are down in single digits, unlike any past US president, and there is increasing mistrust of the supposedly brotherly/sisterly American Jews because so many of us over here are hoping and or praying for peace through a two-state solution.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is clearly the hardest-line leader the state has had since the first time he led it in the mid-1990s. Worse yet, Netanyahu symbolically extended his middle finger to the world by appointing the extreme right-wing racist Avigdor Lieberman as his foreign minister and deputy premier.

Not exactly what one might consider hopeful preconditions.

The immediate issue, which might set the make-or-break point for the talks, is whether a current moratorium on the construction of more new Israeli “settlements”—actually little cities—in the West Bank will be extended past its September 26 deadline.

The West Bank is supposed to be Palestinian home turf, administered by the Palestinian Authority and, along with Gaza and the Golan Heights, the land that will become the eventual Palestinian state. It was won by Israel in the 1967 war and occupied ever since because some super-religious Israelis believe it to be part of biblical Israel, refusing to recognize the political borders established by the world when Israel was born. Well more than 300,000 Israelis occupy settlements there, to say nothing of 200,000 settled in disputed East Jerusalem.

Netanyahu will meet personally every two weeks with PA President Mahmoud Abbas—a surprising proposal made by Netanyahu himself, long an opponent of a Palestinian state. The Israeli leader now boasts that only a hawk such as he can negotiate a solid truce and bring his country along, much as it took a Richard Nixon to open China back in the ‘70s.

Netanyahu is publicly opposed to extending the moratorium on new settlements, but Abbas insists that if it is not extended he will end the negotiations right then and there. The presidents of Egypt and Jordan, who met with all the leaders to show solidarity for the negotiations, say they will walk with him.

There is talk of sub-rosa deals—actually extending the moratorium quietly while announcing it has been officially ended—but who knows what goes on beneath the surface in the Middle East.

I cannot fathom that it will all blow up on the 26th. For one thing, Hillary Clinton, who—to my total surprise—has become an excellent secretary of state and great negotiator, will be heavily involved. She has the respect of all—to the extent that Netanyahu has respect for anyone. I’m beginning to think that if anyone is capable of holding this thing together despite decades of failure, it will be she—though her skills thus far have stopped short of miracle working.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, keeps saying everyone must think creatively and “out of the box.” Is that double-talk or is he really determined to find a solution, to make the compromises he has always rejected?

Or is he playing yet another game: going along with Obama’s wishes for peace talks in order to keep the US as a powerful ally for the day that some think inevitable when Netanyahu decides Israel must attack Iran?

I’m sticking around for the end of this movie—it could be profound, one way or another.

**

Don Rose is a regular columnist for the Chicago Daily Observer