The Peace process (n.) means, in the media, whatever the United States is doing at the moment — so America cannot oppose it, by definition.
The Peace process (n.) opposed by America is a married bachelor: no research is needed to show there are none, the meaning of the words forbids it.
Peace process (n.) launched at Madrid after the Gulf War was the moment the U.S. and Israel finally won their twenty-year rejection of Palestinian national rights.
A Peace process (n.) can mean what apartheid's Bantustans meant — stability for a while — and the comparison with Oslo is unfair, mostly to South Africa.
The Peace process (n.) is the name a process takes once Washington has impeded it for thirty years and can call it American-led.
The Peace process (n.) at Oslo was, as one of its own architects described it, meant to end in permanent neocolonial dependency for the occupied.
The Peace process (n.) is denounced as the enemy's obstruction until the enemy agrees to sign — at which point the draft becomes a deception and a fraud.
The Peace process (n.) is, by definition, whatever the United States happens to be doing — so the sentence "Washington opposes the peace process" is a logical contradiction.
Peace process (n.) can be the name for a diplomatic disaster that power rewrote as a triumph — a Nobel Prize for the war it failed to prevent.
A Peace process (n.) can be a screen behind which a party completes what it wanted to do anyway, while the blame for failure falls on extremists.
The Peace process (n.) can be frozen into a deal in which nothing is negotiated until the subject people quietly accept foreign rule.