The more one desires a settlement, the more he will be taken advantage of. It is for this reason that parties should never show how anxious they are for a settlement. The right posture is to show a reluctance to negotiate. Netanyahu violated all these axioms, begged for peace, and made unilateral concessions. Now that the long-awaited direct talks have begun, Israel appears desperate for a settlement, and the PA appears interested only in what it can get for nothing. Already the PA is conditioning its participation on the continuation of the freeze when it expires on September 26, 2010. It is appropriate to understand what is at stake in whether the freeze continues or not. If the parties believe they can settle the dispute in one year or even two, then whatever can be built within that time span, assuming no freeze, will in no way hinder or impact on the agreement. To date, the PA has shown no desire to get a state. Their only agenda is to destroy Israel, sooner or later. They feel time is on their side with no downside. With the support of Israel and the West, their economy is booming, and their financial support keeps flowing. They care nothing about alleviating the plight of their brethren in the refugee camps. But they do care that they not be resettled around the world, as this would remove one justification for the struggle. They don't even want the IDF to get out of the West Bank, as they need the IDF to prevent Hamas from taking over. So clearly they have nothing to gain from a settlement and perhaps much to lose. They can only get a demilitarized state that they care nothing for; they would have to make painful concessions on the demand of return; and the PA leadership may get killed in the process or get overthrown by Hamas.
U.S. to defend Syrian rebels with airpower, including from Assad (Reuters)
from the article: ANALYSIS / The settlement freeze only hindered negotiations