We have been here so many times before that we inevitably react cynically when asked to once again carry our hopes of a final settlement in Northern Ireland forward for a while more.

Last week’s headlines from Northern Ireland were yet again dominated by a sense of frustration and a palpable air of disappointment that once more a rock in the road has appeared just as the finish line is in sight.

It is no time for faint hearts, however, no more than when the IRA ceasefire broke down in 1997, or when David Trimble walked away on several occasions from previously arranged compromises.

This is how peace is made, piecemeal, one inch at a time. The cast of characters may change, from Albert Reynolds and Bill Clinton to Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern, from John Hume and David Trimble to Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley, but the objective, to navigate the rutted road to peace, continues.

The fact that the two major parties now appear separated merely by a thin roll of film means it is even more frustrating for those who have watched and nurtured this process for over a decade now.

But in Northern Ireland symbols are often more powerful than substance, and there is no question that the notion of humiliation is a very real one for the IRA. They see in recent vitriolic Paisley statements calling for “sackcloth and ashes,” an attempt to change the equation from one of voluntary disarming to abject surrender.

Nevertheless, the fact that Paisley is insisting on photographic verification of decommissioning and that Adams is saying the IRA will supply no such thing seems a minor impediment in the wake of a truly historic week — yet another one in Northern Ireland.

What we took away from last week is that Sinn Fein are ready — with certain guarantees in place — to embrace policing and power sharing with Paisley, and that the Democratic Unionist Party — with certain guarantees in place — are ready to embrace power sharing with Sinn Fein and the return of representative government to the North.

Given the historic thrust of that reality, it seems less important that the deal became stuck on the issue of photographic verification of decommissioning. It seems a small point even in symbolic terms, but it is nonetheless a very real one.

The IRA justifiably can point to the fact that every time they come ready to disarm there are new demands from Unionists for yet more evidence of their intent to decommission. 

No doubt if photographs were supplied there would be a follow-up desire for actual video evidence, or perhaps a visit by Martin Scorsese to film the entire event live for a feature film.

The IRA point out that they have agreed to two independent clergymen, one from each denomination, plus the man charged with the issue, General John de Chastelain, who heads the commission on decommissioning to oversee the process.

That should be enough, but it is not. Like all things in Northern Ireland there is always a further shore right ahead when a final settlement will finally be made.

It is hard to see on this occasion how the issue of photographs can scuttle a truly historic deal, one both governments and all the parties in Northern Ireland have worked incredibly hard to achieve.

A negotiated solution, taking accounts of both points of view, delivered with George Mitchell-like finesse should be enough to resolve this final problem in the way of a comprehensive settlement. In this season of goodwill it should not be impossible to achieve.