The Israeli public views U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry as a house guest who frequently visits the region for a few days for a series of meetings before returning to his country. On Monday, Kerry tried to assure Saudi leaders that U.S. President Barack Obama is not a lame duck and tomorrow he will chat with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. What more will Kerry and Netanyahu have to talk about after their thorough seven-hour conversation in Rome last week- Americans who know Kerry say one should not be misled by his calm demeanor. Kerry is patient and polite, but he is also determined and stubborn. Kerry sticks to his guns, while also taking into account how flexible the other party can be. Asked individually, three different Americans used the same sentence to characterize Kerry -- he does not take no for an answer. The implication is clear. Kerry wants a Nobel Peace Prize and he knows that any delay will only push a final-status Israeli-Palestinian agreement further into the future. Kerry understands that the U.S. finds itself in awkward situations with Egypt (which is becoming increasingly close with Russia), Saudi Arabia (which is rumored to be considering forming an anti-Iran axis without the U.S. as its core) and Iran (with which the U.S. and other world powers are holding direct talks). Kerry has to deal with all of this, before even getting to the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. At the moment, there are two channels of Israeli-Palestinian talks. The first is between Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, Netanyahu envoy Isaac Molho and chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat. The second is between Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, with Kerry serving as the go-between. This two-channel system was also used during Ehud Olmert's time as prime minister, when Olmert talked with Abbas, the Americans and the Turks, while Livni, who was Olmert's foreign minister, met with Ahmed Qurei, the chief Palestinian negotiator at the time. The Palestinians are undoubtedly oscillating between two options that they see as reasonable -- halting talks and renewing violence or reaching a permanent peace agreement with Israel. Israel has presented its demands. Is there an outline for an agreement- It may be that the gaps between the positions of the two sides cannot be bridged. In such a scenario, the Palestinians -- with the support of elements of Israel's opposition -- would favor the U.S. presenting an ultimatum plan, a "holy writ." The U.S. would then see if anyone would dare to resist. This American proposal would be based on Kerry's many travels, and it would not necessarily lead to a permanent peace agreement. The Americans may study what led to the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace agreement and realize that an interim deal (like the one Israel and Egypt signed in 1975) is a necessary step on the way to the final destination. As of now, Netanyahu and Abbas are opposed to an interim agreement, but the Americans can see that this opposition is softening. When Netanyahu speaks of Israel maintaining its eastern border on the Jordan River for many years, he is hinting at a long-term interim deal, without saying so explicitly. And when Abbas talks about a creative arrangement in which the final borders would be determined on a set future date, he is also speaking about an interim deal, without saying anything in detail about its nature.
It is against this backdrop, with the Americans getting closer to making their own proposal and with Israel's desire to avoid a breakdown of the negotiations (as expressed in outgoing National Security Adviser Yaakov Amidror's farewell remarks), that Netanyahu will meet with Kerry in Jerusalem on Wednesday.
