Though the Palestinians have caved in to heavy US pressure to take part in direct talks with Israel, it remains unclear how progress can be made on final status issues when there is not even an end to settlement building, reports Khaled Dawoud from Washington In the absence of any clear agreement on the terms of reference for the first direct peace talk in nearly two years, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's brief statement in Washington last week that talks will conclude within a year looks hopelessly optimistic. In an attempt to put more pressure on Palestinians and Israelis to take the talks seriously, Clinton announced that the first day of the talks on Wednesday between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu would be attended by President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah. Clearly keen to help US President Barack Obama and what seems like sincere effort on his behalf to move the peace process, the leaders of Egypt and Jordan accepted the invitation. After bilateral talks with each of the four leaders US President Barack Obama will host a dinner at the White House. On Thursday Clinton will bring in Abbas and Netanyahu for their first round of talks at the State Department, during which they are expected to decide when, and where, the second round will take place. US State Department officials say that it is most likely that the second round will be in the Middle East. Since Netanyahu took office Palestinian President Abbas has insisted that he would only enter into direct talks with Israel when it committed itself to freezing settlement construction and agreed that the goal of negotiations should be an end to Israeli presence in Palestinian territories that it has occupied since 1967. But after 17 rounds of indirect talks chaired by US Middle East peace envoy Senator George Mitchell Abbas failed to get what he wanted, leading some to blame Obama for raising his hopes only to backtrack in the face of strong Israeli resistance. Shortly after Clinton announced the long expected launch of direct talks, Netanyahu emphasised that he was going to Washington on the basis of the "US invitation" and without any "preconditions". Abbas, on the other hand, repeatedly pointed to a statement issued by the Middle East Quartet -- the US is a key member of the Quartet, alongside Russia, the European Union and the United Nations -- to coincide with the US invitation to direct talks. According to informed Arab diplomatic sources, the Quartet statement was delayed for nearly two weeks, with Israel refusing any attempt to include language directly calling for a freeze on settlements or set the 1967 borders as the basis for negotiations. The diplomatic compromise was to refer at the beginning of the Quartet's statement to the commitment to all "previous" statements issued by the group, the last of which, issued in Moscow in March 2010, clearly called upon Israel to stop building settlements, including in occupied East Jerusalem. The Quartet statement also noted that the aim of any settlement would be to "end the occupation which began in 1967" thus making it palatable to Abbas, despite Netanyahu's determination to make a clear distinction between the Quartet's statement and Clinton's invitation. But, as one Arab diplomat who requested anonymity put it, the general view in New York is that the Quartet is an "inefficient and idle body, to put it politely". "What counts is the US, and what comes out of Washington," he continued. "So President Abbas can keep on pointing to the Quartet statement for domestic consumption, but in the end he knows he's going to the talks without preconditions." "Abbas was upset when he heard Clinton saying talks would resume without preconditions," says the diplomat. "But then the Americans told him that they had to do this in order to convince Netanyahu to attend the direct talks and to give them more leverage to extend the settlement freeze beyond September." Abbas has also conveyed to Arab leaders a letter he received from President Obama in mid-July which contained a veiled threat that if he refused to take part in direct talks, the US would have little room to help push forward the peace process. Palestinian Chief Negotiator Saeb Ereikat stresses that 26 September, when the six-month Israeli settlement freeze expires, will be the real test. If Netanyahu proves unable to resist the pressure from his right-wing coalition partners and fails to extend the settlement freeze, then "the talks will stop". Palestinian officials speak of "assurances" they have received from Obama, Clinton and Mitchell that Washington will exert pressure on Netanyahu to extend the settlement freeze, and that if talks fail to make progress on key final status issue the Americans will come in with their "middle of the road" proposals. The majority of observers and US commentators remain profoundly sceptical of the ability of any of the key layers -- Abbas, Netanyahu and Obama -- to deliver. Abbas, they point out, leads a deeply divided constituency, split between the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah and the Hamas government in Gaza. Abbas's agreement to take part in direct talks not only angered Hamas, but weakened the possibility for reconciliation between the two sides. Netanyahu, meanwhile, is not only known for his own hardline views on key final status issues such as Jerusalem, refugees and borders, but heads a fragile coalition that could collapse at any moment, and most probably will if he decides to extend the freeze on building settlements beyond 26 September. Obama, meanwhile, is facing Congressional elections on 2 November. The signs are that the Democratic Party will lose heavily to their Republican opponents, making it unlikely that Obama will be willing to put any meaningful pressure on Israel. "It is very unfortunate that President Obama is back to the [former US president George W] Bush tradition of meetings for the media and photo-ops," said the Arab diplomat. "But obviously he also needs, like Bush, to claim some kind of success, especially ahead of the upcoming elections and at a time when his popularity in the polls does not seem to be all that good."
