Israel is unhappy with the remarks made by the European Union's top foreign policy diplomat Javier Solana. During a speech in London over the weekend, the EU high representative called on the United Nations to recognize a Palestinian state by a deadline to be determined, even if the two parties have failed to reach an agreement.

"The mediator has to set the timetable, too. If the parties are not able to stick to it, then a solution backed by the international community should be put on the table. After a fixed deadline, a UN Security Council resolution should proclaim the adoption of the two- state solution," Solana said when giving the Ditchley Foundation lecture.

"It would accept the Palestinian state as a full member of the UN, and set a calendar for implementation. It would mandate the resolution of other remaining territorial disputes and legitimize the end of claims," he added.

Solana's comments are the latest in a series by senior figures in the international community that suggest a growing frustration with the Israeli and Palestinian inability to enter meaningful peace talks.

Despite the more hands-on approach of the Obama administration, compared to that of former United States President George W. Bush, negotiators from the two parties have yet to meet face to face for serious talks, publicly at least.

There is still anger in Palestinian circles following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's June 14 address in which he called for a resumption of talks.

The Palestinians believe Netanyahu was setting preconditions in the speech: that a future Palestinian state should be demilitarized and that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland. While Netanyahu's advisers insist those terms were not preconditions but rather issues that would be discussed once talks began.

Either way, the pregnant pause in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is leading some thinkers and diplomats to come up with new ideas aimed at bringing about the creation of a Palestinian state.

Solana's suggestion centers on the idea of imposing a solution on the Israelis and Palestinians. That flies in the face of the Oslo Accords, which, back in 1993, were the basis of the creation of the Palestinian Authority and new theoretical harmony between the parties.

The accords make clear that disputes be resolved "by negotiations." Should that approach fail, disputes "may be resolved by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed upon by the parties."

Resorting to coercion is not a helpful tactic, said Uri Savir, seen as one of the architects of the Oslo Accords. He argues the accords can no longer be used as any form of reference point for the current situation, given their life-span was just five years, what was thought of then as plenty of time to reach a final-status agreement.

In Savir's opinion, forcing the parties is not necessary at this time.

"I think the two sides are very close to sitting and there will be negotiations," Savir said, adding that timetables should only be discussed once the parties are already talking.

While Palestinian officials welcomed Solana's suggestion, the idea of imposing a solution on the parties is not favored by Khalil Shikaki, who heads the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research.

The polls Shikaki has conducted in conjunction with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem over the last two years suggest, "pressure", rather than coercion, could be of benefit.

Both Israelis and Palestinians seem to support the idea of America's pressure being brought to bear on the parties in order to push the process forwards.

The subject of forcing Israeli and Palestinian hands was the topic of a debate in Jerusalem earlier this month. Third parties must refrain from imposing an agreement on the two peoples, said Robert Dann, who is the head of regional political affairs with the Office of the United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process.

"That's an unlikely thing in the foreseeable future," Dann said at the Jerusalem meeting of the Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI).

However, the organization hosting the event is pushing for the international community to intervene and impose a solution from above. IPCRI has taken its campaign to the White House, United Nations and beyond.

"The international community created the two-state solution in 1947, now it's time to finish the job," said the organization's Israeli co-CEO Gershon Baskin.

Perhaps somewhat unsurprisingly, Israel immediately rejected Solana's proposal. "An arbitrary timetable can only damage the chances of a successful agreement rather than advancing them," the country's Foreign Ministry told Xinhua.

Solana's remarks not only reflect his own views but the feeling of the international community that something needs to be done soon to reboot the process. The question is what will work, and on this, there is no clear agreement.

The international Peace Quartet is trying to bridge the Israeli-Palestinian divide. The US favors a facilitating role to let the parties themselves do the talking, Russia is pushing to host an international conference to get the ball rolling again, the UN says such a conference can only happen at "second or third base" and the EU is now apparently looking for an imposed solution.

Publicly, the four try to present a united front, but it is clear to some analysts that there is much that separates opinion among these bodies when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian process.

Solana's proposal is likely to be met with a degree of cynicism and even rejection, particularly in Washington, which is trying to place a positive sheen on the Israeli and Palestinian abilities to kick-start the process. However, Europe would like to see itself as increasingly influential on this stage and introducing new thoughts on ending the conflict, which certainly makes the EU and Solana page-one news.

(Xinhua News Agency July 14, 2009)