A bit of local tension in the editorial team this week about how to present the story of Ariel Sharon's decision to leave the Likud Party he helped found and start his own in time for elections planned for early next year.
As one who follows the twists and turns of Middle Eastern politics for many years with fascination but few expectations of a sudden, bright dawn, I was excited by the news but not bowled over.
I have friends in the region who have survived decades of disappointment by not expecting too much from politicians.
I have a law degree which I acquired in part through close study of the minute details of the Oslo and so-called interim agreements which allowed Yasser Arafat to return to the West Bank and gave a huge boost to Israeli/Palestinian businesses.
I can tell you more about the administration of mineral rights in Areas A, B and C than anyone could possibly listen to without nodding off.
Against that background, even a change as dramatic as a serving prime minister abandoning his own party might seem like the opening of another chapter, not the closing of an old book.
Some Palestinians have had the same reaction - Mustafa Barghouti, for example, head of the political party the Palestinian National Initiative. He says this is just a way for Ariel Sharon to hold onto power and the idea of a Palestinian state will face the same obstacles.
Others, like Saeb Erekat, call the new party a volcano at the heart of Israeli politics and the most significant change for Palestinians in decades.
Understanding the importance of some kind of final status agreement between Israelis and Palestinians, anyone would hope a volcano is going to produce a new, fertile landscape.
But the image of a bulldozer pushing rubble into sand is what Palestinians are likely to think of in some of their communities.
The debate in our editorial office took on a similar division. I can't tell you much about what was said, but voices were raised.
Good thing we're still so passionate about covering the news, don't you think?