by Zhang Yanyang

    JERUSALEM, March 6 (Xinhua) -- As U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton concluded her first tour through the Middle East this week, analysts said her statements concerning the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian quagmire left much unresolved.

    Like her predecessor Condoleezza Rice, Clinton said that she intended to get personally involved in the peace negotiations. Her appointed emissary, George Mitchell, would return to the region as soon as an Israeli government is established.

    Despite Rice's many trips and personal efforts in prodding the Annapolis process for a two-states-for-two-peoples solution, which enjoys support from Israeli, Palestinian and U.S. leaders, she failed to achieve the goal of reaching a peace deal by the end of the previous U.S. administration under George W. Bush.

    Now under new President Barack Obama, said Clinton, the United States would engage vigorously in the stalled peace talks and playa "coordinating role" to renew peace efforts.

    Yet "at the end of the day, no one can make a decision on whether or not there will be two states or a comprehensive peace settlement except those that are directly involved," the former first lady noted.

    During a news conference with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Clinton repeated her support for the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, and indicated that she would seek a way to put the cessation of Israeli settlement expansion on the table "along with all the other issues that need to be discussed and resolved."

    However, such moves would likely put her at odds with the next Israeli government, as Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu, although having pledged to advance the peace process, has stopped short of committing himself to the two-state plan. He said in the past that he wanted to focus negotiations on economic rather than territorial issues.

    Meanwhile, the former prime minister has said he would not be pushed into accepting a Palestinian state at a time when many Israelis believed that withdrawing Israeli forces from the West Bank would lead to Hamas taking over there, as it did in the Gaza Strip after Israel pulled out in 2005.

    "I think at this time, we should wait until we have a new Israeli government. That will be soon and then we will look at whatever tools are available," said Clinton.

    Her remarks carried a notable deal of ambiguity, which was necessary since the rules of the game were still unknown, Professor Barry Rubin, director of the Center for Global Research in International Affairs, told Xinhua on Friday.

    "Everybody in Washington and the United States knows there is no government in Israel. There is absolutely no sense in making any policy initiative now," he added.

    Since this was Clinton's first visit to the region as secretary of state, she needed to establish an initial report with the different sides, get up-to-date with the situation on the ground and familiarize herself with the issue, said Rubin.

    "The U.S. government understands that they are not going to make any dramatic progress on Arab-Israeli relations," he said, adding that the statements Clinton made here should not be taken as guidelines for the Obama administration's future involvement.

    The new administration mostly wanted to give the impression that they are very much engaged, in order to draw a contrast with the Bush administration, which was commonly faulted for not doing enough, he added.

    "They know there is no quick and easy solution to the problem," said Rubin.

    With a similar point of view, Dahlia Golan, a professor of political sciences at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, also said that it was too early to know exactly what standpoint either Clinton or the future Israeli government would take on the historical conflict.

    While noting that "it is unknown what Clinton's involvement will be," Golan told Xinhua that Clinton's rejection of Hamas needs a second thought.

    While Palestinian factions are holding reconciliation talks for the formation of a unity government that could include Hamas, Clinton reiterated the demand that to be recognized in that government, Hamas must recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept previous Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements.

    "I would have preferred that Clinton did not say anything and left it until there is an Israeli government and there is a reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas," Golan said.

    For negotiations on the establishment of a future Palestinian state alongside Israel to be successful, the sides need at least to secure Hamas' support for conducting such talks, even if the group would not be directly included in the process, said Golan.

    "To negotiate with Mahmoud Abbas alone and ignore Hamas is a dead end. He is simply too weak and doesn't have enough support from the people," Golan added.

    Meanwhile, clashes between Israel and Hamas are still continuing, with Gazan militants firing rockets at southern Israel and Israeli forces bombing southern Gaza, where militants have been allegedly smuggling weapons through underground tunnels.

    As the United States face other issues that are of greater domestic importance, such as the recession-hit domestic economy and the warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, Rubin said that the Obama administration would not be able to make Israeli-Palestinian talks a high priority.

    For now, the United States would have to go through the motions and keep an open dialogue without necessarily pressing on for a final solution that has so far remained elusive, he said.

    "They basically want it to look like they are doing something, when they are really not doing anything at all," Rubin said.