"Prior to the establishment of the Melkite Church in 1729, intercommunion between Roman Catholics and Orthodox was not unheard of. Several 17th century Patriarchs of Antioch were in communion with both Rome and Orthodoxy."
Well, yes and no. After the Great Schism, Rome certainly tried hard, through the French, to get a hold of the whole Patriarchate of Antioch. The measure of its success is the present day Melkite Church which came into formal union with Rome in the 18th century.
"Bishop Kallistos' works include mention of Orthodox participation in Roman Catholic Corpus Christi processions in the Venetian-held islands during the 17th century."
There are a couple of small "Catholic" Greek Islands to this day where there are very close ties between the Orthodox and the Catholics but these ties don't amount to anything like intercommunion. That does go on in Lebanon however.
"From my understanding, many Eastern Catholic academics have argued for dual communion, akin to the situation that currently exists with ROCOR."
I've never heard of this. Looking to become a canonical anomoly like ROCOR has been, but won't be much longer, doesn't seem to me to be such a great idea. What would it accomplish? I suppose for purely nationalistic reasons, which would run right into charges of the heresy of phyletism, the Ukranian Greek Catholics might want to establish such a union in Ukraine, but the reaction in the rest of Orthodoxy would be extremely negative. For that reason alone, I suspect, Rome would also be against it.
I understand this, and I know that Benedic XVI rejected the Melkite initiative when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger.
I think the Catholic intelligentsia are well meaning, but naive. The biggest issue is that both sides claim to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and nothing is going to change that.