As the Palestinians made their long-awaited request for United Nations membership, Washington called for a new round of Mideast negotiations. The Palestinian bid was a move of desperation. The Obama administration and Israel saw Palestine membership as an unsettling, game-changing event.  But to most of the international community, entry of Palestine to the U.N. would not hurt Israel or necessarily interfere with the peace process.

Since President Obama has persistently expressed strong support for a two-state solution, a flat veto of Palestinian statehood would look hostile to the Arabs and incongruous to other countries. Thinking of a graceful diplomatic exit from an untenable position, Washington called for a new round of negotiations under the auspices of the Madrid Quartet, the coalition assigned to promote the resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: the U.S., the European Union, the U.N and Russia. According to an improvised White House strategy, renewed peace talks would give the U.S. time to justify refusing the Palestine bid later on, after the Security Council debates the issue.

Despite a persistent wide gap between Palestinian and Israeli opinions, the Quartet proposed a timeline to achieve “concrete results” within a year. It is hard to identify all the barriers to a final settlement. Nonetheless, comprehensive Mideast peace will remain elusive as long as Israel is comfortable with the occupation and growing settlements on what Palestinians consider their land, Palestinians are divided and Washington is not a neutral broker.

The last round of peacemaking ended a year ago. Observe how these factors played out.

First, feeling strong and unconditionally embraced by Congress, Israel insisted on conducting negotiations with Palestinians while continuing to build settlements.

Second, West Bank Palestinians dropped out of the peace process objecting to expansion of settlements, while Hamas, which rules over Gaza, did not even participate in the short-lived negotiations.

Third, over the past year, President Obama has softened his stand on settlements; his condemnation of expanding construction of illegal housing on Palestinian land has cost him domestic political capital.

The newly proposed round of negotiations is not likely to live long, regardless of what happens at the U.N. to the Palestinian bid. Things are even getting worse. Recently, Israel announced a plan to build 1,100 housing units in East Jerusalem, a move even the Quartet considered “disappointing” and provocative. There are some isolated Congressional attempts to cut U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority as punishment for its unilateral seeking of UN membership.

The sad reality is that conditions are not ripe for peace today. It probably will take two to five years for any of these three barriers to fall. Since the status quo is unsustainable, things are bound to change.

Let us imagine:

Inspired by the Arab Spring, Palestinians go to the street calling for unity and absolute commitment to non-violence in resistance of the occupation.  Through a fair and free national election, Palestinians shift from tribal to state-building politics. Thus empowered, with a united nonviolent resistance, they make Israel seriously assess the cost of maintaining and expanding the occupation.

A liberal Israeli government able to exchange land for durable peace and normalization of relations with Arab countries emerges. New leadership on both sides brings creative solutions for the Jerusalem status issue and the right of return of Palestinian refugees.

If he wins a second-term, President Obama would be able to both embrace Israel and be fair to the Palestinians. Launching a new round of Mideast negotiations in today’s political climate is risky.