I should be more hopeful of upcoming talks with Israel re Palestine... but this article is probably on the mark. Note that this article originates from UAE.

"

Only question is who will be blamed when peace talks fail

Tony Karon

• Last Updated: May 08. 2010 8:03PM UAE / May 8. 2010 4:03PM GMT

Asked in the early 1970s whether The Beatles would ever get back together, Paul McCartney memorably answered: “You can’t reheat a soufflé.” Unfortunately, McCartney’s fluffy culinary metaphor may apply equally to the Middle East peace process.

It would be an understatement to say expectations are low for the “proximity talks” that may or may not get off the ground this weekend. Israeli and Palestinian leaders will negotiate separately with the US mediator George Mitchell, unable to agree even on the preconditions that would allow them to meet face to face. Both sides know they’re too far apart on issues ranging from Palestinian independence and borders to control of Jerusalem and the fate of refugees to reach a deal.

The Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu represents the political forces in Israel that fought against the Oslo Accords and even opposed Ariel Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. While Mr Netanyahu uses the words “two states for two peoples”, he has made clear that he has no intention of implementing such a solution on the generally understood parameters of an independent Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

The Israeli political consensus that enabled the Oslo process is a distant memory in a country that has moved steadily, and perhaps irrevocably, to the right ever since, believing that ceding territory has simply brought more violence. Ultranationalist parties of Russian immigrants and extremist West Bank settlers opposed to giving up any of the Occupied Territories are key players in Mr Netanyahu’s ruling coalition. And such is the strength of the settlers in the officer corps of the Israeli military that its chief of staff has warned the government against using the military to evacuate settlements that would have to be closed down under a peace agreement.

Israelis have grown comfortable, once again, with an occupation that doesn’t negatively affect their own lives. Locked down in Gaza and behind the wall in the West Bank, Palestinians’ daily life is as remote as Iraqis’ in Israelis’ awareness. Most Israelis are opposed to handing over occupied land to the Palestinian Authority, and believe they have nothing to gain from the US president Barack Obama’s peace process. Working towards a final-status agreement poses far more immediate risks for Israel’s government than maintaining the status quo.

So, the Israeli game is largely to convince Washington that pursuing a final-status agreement right now is misguided, not because the two sides are far apart on the issues, but because the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas is far too politically weak to sell any agreement to his people. Indeed, the fact that Mr Abbas needs the backing of the Arab League to join the talks is a reminder of just how little political authority he enjoys at home. Selling a deal that would involve compromising on the right of return of refugees – a red line issue for the Israelis – would have been a tough call even when the Palestinian national movement was unified and its leaders’ moral and political authority unchallenged. Today the movement is a shambles.

Instead, the Israelis hope to persuade Mr Obama that the key to peace is the economic development and institution-building currently under way in those enclaves of the West Bank currently under Palestinian Authority control. (Israel prefers not to talk about Gaza at all.) In other words, upgrade the legal definitions of the status quo, leave Israel in control of most of the territory it currently holds in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and defer negotiations on borders, the status of Jerusalem and refugees to some more auspicious moment in the future.

Continues

"

Unfortunately, Palestinians do not want the big brother oversight, lock-stock-and-barrel and all - from Israel.

 

Note also this opinion editorial article on the same news outlet:

Israel’s nuclear deception is no longer off limits

• Last Updated: May 08. 2010 7:11PM UAE / May 8. 2010 3:11PM GMT

The United States has backed an Egyptian resolution calling for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons. It is doubtful that there is actually the political will in the US to challenge its ally Israel over its not-so-secret nuclear arsenal, but the momentum is definitely shifting against the exceptionalism that Israel has enjoyed, allowing it to flaunt the rules that other countries are forced to follow.

More

 

------------------

Israel is smack dab in the midst of the the oil-rich muslim states and is dogged with its issues of terrorism on its land. So, to some degree, I think we understand Israel's need for a nuclear arsenal. But as years go by and countries like Iran beef up their arsenal, Israel may need to come to the table to negotiate nuclear disarmament.