Who is to blame for the "current impasse" or rather, the current rerun of the movie called "Current impasse in the peace process?" Who is not to blame?

Both Israeli and Palestinian leaders insist that they want peace. Nir Hefetz, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's media advisor, recently repeated another cliche of the "peace process: "Nobody wants peace as much as the Israeli people." And Mahmoud Abbas likewise claimed that the Palestinians want peace, but Israel does not.

Mahmoud Abbas recently added another act to the dog and pony show by insisting that he will not run again for the office of Palestinian President. It is not really clear if he intends to hold elections. If he did hold the promised elections and ran, Abbas, like Arafat before him, would essentially be running unopposed, since the Hamas would boycott the election. His election would no doubt be hailed, like that of Arafat, as a big victory for democracy.

Both Prime Minister Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas in fact took stands that were just "reasonable" enough to assuage Americans, and just impossible enough to ensure that the other side would not consent to renewing peace negotiations. Abbas insisted on a freeze on building settlement housing before beginning negotiations. Netanyahu allowed for a "partial" settlement freeze that may in fact be no freeze at all, since it includes completion of 2,500 units that were already started. The talk about peace, on both sides is part of the dog and pony show that is performed for the benefit of foreign public opinion. The claim that "there is no peace partner" - yet another cliche of the "peace process" - is a convenient cover for internal consumption.

Evidently, both sides are afraid that in in fact there is a peace partner on the other side, or that there might be one. If they ever got around to peace making, both leaders would be in the position of the dog who chased trucks all his life, and finally caught one. They would have to make unpopular concessions (another cliche for those who are counting) and show extraordinary leadership. They can't show abilities they don't have, and they themselves have made the concessions unpopular by constantly insisting on demands and positions that make peace impossible - united Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel, but Palestinians can't have peace until there is a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem, including all of East Jerusalem of course. Time and again, Abbas has said that Right of Return for Palestinian refugees is an absolute demand of the Palestinians. For Israel this is unthinkable, and Abbas knows it. Concessions on any of these issues become more and more unpopular, because leaders and governments ensure that they are unpopular.

If Mr. Abbas really wanted peace, he would sit down at the negotiating table. Whether or not he negotiates, the same number of settlement housing units will be probably be built in the coming months, and whatever is built is nothing compared to what was already built, and what will be built in future years if he does not make peace.

If Mr, Netanyahu wanted peace, and wanted to demonstrate that the Palestinians do not want peace, he would give Mr. Abbas his settlement freeze, and then propose, publicly, a realistic and generous peace plan. He would let Mr. Abbas be the one to say "no."

But it is not only the leaders who are to blame. Their hard line stands were rewarded by broad public support. A recent poll shows that Mahmoud Abbas and the Fatah would trounce Hamas and its candidates in elections. Netanyahu's popularity has increased since he was elected as well. Talking tough pays political dividends.

The United States is to blame too. Barack Obama went into the peace process like a bull in a china shop, and things went flying. The United States seemed to promise the Palestinians an Israeli settlement freeze, and they seemed to promise Israel concessions from Arab states as a reward for the settlement freeze, as well as a tough policy on Iranian nuclear development. But Mr. Obama could not deliver on any promise.

Hillary Clinton was next in the China shop. Her remark about "unprecedented" Israeli concessions provoked an inevitable storm of protest from the Palestinians and their Arab backers, whereupon the mighty superpower beat a hasty retreat, with Clinton calling for a permanent end to all Israeli settlement activity. The Palestinian reaction was foreseeable - it "didn't take a rocket scientist." If Hillary Clinton wasn't prepared to defend her remarks about Israel's unprecedented step, why did she make them? If the US was unwilling to force Israel to stop all settlement construction, why did they insist on it so publicly? If they were unwilling to force Arab states to make minimal and nominal concessions concerning recognition of Israel, why did they raise the issue and demonstrate American weakness and the hopelessness of the peace process?

Tom Friedman probably expressed the disgust of Americans with the 15th rerun of the peace process movie:

Obama administration officials may be the only ones who don't understand that they are watching the 15th rerun of the "peace process" movie on a bad cable TV channel. Tom Friedman is not a "neocon" or peace skeptic. He was one of the most stalwart supporters of the peace process. Friedman also helped bring the Saudi Peace initiative into the world. If he has given up, it is significant and indicative. But there are a few problems with Friedman's jocular movie analogy and his recommendation to "just go home." Friedman forgot that there are more scenes to the movie. After the peace process scene, there is generally an outbreak of violence, the seeds of which are already being prepared. What's more, actual people get blown to bits in making the movie. It is not a work of fiction. And most important for Americans, perhaps, the renewal of the conflict may affect the price of oil. While Americans might not be stirred by the melodramatics of Israeli and Palestinian leaders, or even by the drama of suicide bombings and invasions of Gaza, if the price of gasoline is increased by ten or twenty cents per gallon, they might be forced to move their attention from the Rose Bowl and the Super Bowl to the Middle East.

Americans have to recognize that they are not innocent bystanders watching a movie about the peace process. If the Hamas now rules in Gaza, that is a direct result of US intervention to ensure they participated in Palestinian elections, in violation of the Oslo Interim Agreement. The US pays for Israeli army hardware, and it also pays for Palestinian schools to teach that Haifa is a part of Palestine. Mr. Friedman, your tax dollars are at work.

The US government has to stop acting as though they don't know how the movie played out in the past. They have, in fact, a unique opportunity. Suppose the 1938 Munich negotiations had been rerun a dozen times. Wouldn't Mr. Chamberlain, even the stupid Neville Chamberlain, have eventually caught on and said, "I'm not going to stand for this again. I won't be fooled by Hitler this time around."

The United States has a chance to change the peace process movie. They are not part of a passive audience. They are actors. Perhaps they can try a little ad libbing. Instead of smiling and looking for photo opportunities and blaming the sides and giving up, as they usually do about this point, the United States can lay down the principles of a peace agreement right now. They can't force the Israelis and Palestinians to accept the principles, but on the other hand, the Israelis and Palestinians can't force the United States to continue their generous aid programs either. The United States can make it clear that it doesn't have to bankroll the Palestinian Authority, the UNRWA or Israeli defense needs unconditionally and indefinitely. The US is not obliged to prop up the "moderate" Saudi regime either if they won't show a little flexibility on the elusive Arab peace initiative.

We have gotten to the part of the movie where every party points the finger of blame at the other party, and the United States is about to walk out on the mess it helped create, as the Bush administration did. Can we change the movie this time? But who wants to bet that the cowboy will not once again get shot in first scene this time around?

Ami Isseroff