Nobody expected a quick happy ending, but the depths to which the Middle East peace process has fallen, and the degree to which American influence has collapsed, are nothing short of astounding.

Just three years ago, a deal between Israelis and Palestinians seemed tantalizingly close. Today, political realities have transformed the landscape and the one mediator that had the ability to influence the outcome of talks, the United States, looks virtually powerless.

With the region in turmoil there are signs that violent attacks against civilians could again become the tactic of choice for militant groups who believe Israel does not have the right to exist, encouraged by the views from more moderate Palestinian leaders who suggest something similar in more polite language. Last week’s attacks on the Red Sea resort of Eilat could be just the beginning.

Consider recent statements by a top Palestinian negotiator. In an interview with the Lebanese network ANB, Nabil Sha’ath ― a former foreign minister of the Palestinian Authority and still a top advisor to President Mahmoud Abbas ― rejected out of hand the fundamental goal of the peace process, the creation of “two states for two peoples.” Sha’ath categorically declared, “We will never accept this.”

These are not the words of a marginal extremist figure. Sha’ath is a leading Palestinian figure and is probably the top foreign affairs officials in Fatah, the party that controls the U.S. and Europe-funded Palestinian government in the West Bank.

Sha’ath was commenting on a French proposal that sought to break the impasse over a key issue. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish State, something Palestinians refuse to do. Israel argues that recognizing that Israel is the state of the Jewish people is fundamental to establishing that Palestinians accept the long-term existence of Israel in the Middle East, and is akin to, for example, recognizing the Britishness of Britain. Israeli law mandates equal democratic rights for all the country’s citizens, regardless of religion. To ease Palestinian objections to Netanyahu’s demand, France suggested that, instead of using the term “Jewish State,” the term used by the United Nations when it called for the creation of Israel, Palestinians simply acknowledge the “two states for two peoples” formula. But Palestinians say even that will never happen.

According to Sha’ath, “(Palestine) will be a state for one people,” but the same can never be accepted for Israel. He also insisted that Palestinians will never give up the right of Palestinian refugees and millions of their descendants born in other parts of the world to move to the minuscule State of Israel. That would bring an end to the one Jewish-majority country in a world where, incidentally, there are dozens of Muslim and Arab countries.

Without the shared objective of having two states for two peoples, it’s hard to imagine how any peace process can move forward. It isn’t.

At a different time, these statements might have caused problems for negotiations. But there are no negotiations. With impeccably irritating timing, Israel is moving forward with more construction in disputed areas, East Jerusalem and Ariel, one of the West Bank settlements that would have stayed within the bounds of Israel under previous peace negotiations, including the 2008 talks between Mahmoud Abbas and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Under those plans, Israel would keep the major settlement blocs and compensate Palestinians with equal amounts of territory adjacent to the West Bank but now within the borders of Israel proper. That formula would have worked and still could, if there were negotiations and if shared objectives were affirmed.

Israel’s new construction plans go in direct opposition to demands made early in his administration by President Obama. That was back in the days when it looked as if the new American president might have the power to nudge Israelis and Palestinians over the finish line to a peace deal.

Now it looks as if neither side is paying that much attention to Washington.

“The U.S.,” according to Sha’ath, the Palestinian negotiator, “does not play a role anymore in the Middle East.” To emphasize his point, he added a depressing, dismissive coda, “What was the role of the U.S. in the ‘Arab Spring?’”

Israel is calling for a return to talks. But Palestinians are moving forward with their unilateral plan to go to the United Nations next month, where a symbolic vote for Palestinian statehood will do nothing to bring an agreement closer, pushing the sides even farther apart.

It’s a depressing and dangerous scenario, but it’s worth remembering that three years ago peace seemed within reach. In this era of unexpected changes, the wind could shift again.

By Frida Ghitis, The Miami Herald.

Frida Ghitis writes about global affairs for the Miami Herald. ― Ed.

(McClatchy-Tribune Information Services)