The first is the model of the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) responsible for peacekeeping in the Sinai Peninsula, which was established in the wake of the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. The reason this model works, he said, is that, as the MFO puts it, "the parties negotiated a protocol in 1981 establishing the MFO 'as an alternative' to the envisioned UN force."

The MFO's work includes operation of checkpoints, reconnaissance patrols and observation posts. The Rome-based organization was established specifically for this purpose.

Brom's other suggestion for a workable solution fits glove in hand with that of Abbas.

"That's where a credible, international organization that can do it agrees to take on the mission. Today there's only one that can do so and that is NATO," he said.

Here the UN can play a role, with its Security Council mandating NATO to perform the task, giving the mission broad international legitimacy, he added.

Netanyahu's likely reaction

On the question of whether Netanyahu would accept this request from Abbas, Brom said it is hard to know exactly what Netanyahu wants, but previous Israeli administrations have been prepared to accept such a proposal.

Gadi Wolfsfeld, a professor of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, believes Netanyahu would not accept the deployment of an international force. In his opinion, Israel's experience with UNIFIL has not been good.

In the event that Israeli troops were in hot pursuit of terrorists, Netanyahu would not want to have to deal with a NATO or similar force while trying to capture a terror cell, Wolfsfeld said.

If the Jerusalem academic is correct and Netanyahu does not agree to this condition from Abbas, that could leave a serious question mark over the fate of direct talks and indeed the entire peace process. The same can be said for any other terms that Netanyahu has already or will reject.

"As far as I can see unless there is a breakthrough on some major issues there aren't going to be direct talks," Wolfsfeld said.

He sees the Americans and the Israelis on the one hand calling for direct talks, while the Palestinians and the Egyptians are insisting they want to see Israeli movement before agreeing to enter a face-to-face parley.

With the September deadline drawing ever closer, Wolfsfeld does not see anything in the offing and even if direct talks do begin, they could well break off pretty quickly should Israel resume building in the West Bank, he said.

The truth is that at this stage no one outside of a handful of Israelis, Palestinians, Americans and Egyptians really know what the actual picture is. Hints, leaks, speculations and trial balloons on the part of Palestinian and Israeli officials are only succeeding in muddying the waters.

While much of the analysis is very negative, it is still the case that the parties are talking to one another, albeit indirectly, and there is a chance that direct talks could take place secretly to try to work out some form of compromise formula that could then take direct negotiations into the public eye.