E-MAIL THIS LINK
To: 

Arab nations back indirect peace talks with Israel
CAIRO -- Arab nations gave the Palestinians the green light Saturday to enter indirect peace talks with Israel, likely opening the way for the start of long-stalled U.S.-brokered negotiations.
Kinda sorta. Until the Israel-Iran War commences.
The purpose of indirect talks is to give President Obama a chance to force Israel to give the Arabs everything they want, a step at a time.
The decision, made by foreign ministers from several top Arab League member nations, comes after a first attempt to get indirect talks going collapsed in March when Israel announced a new Jewish housing project in east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians claim as a future capital.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat told reporters that the Arab foreign ministers decided 'that we should stick to the decision' to enter indirect talks with Israel via a US mediator.

'We need the Arabs' support and assistance,' Erekat said.

This is the second time Arab nations have endorsed indirect talks. The Arab League first did so in early March. Arab foreign ministers said Saturday they had reservations about backing the talks a second time, but said they were willing to do so for a preliminary four-month period despite what they see as a lack of commitment to peace from Israel.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has signaled that he would be willing to resume negotiations, and US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday the talks would start next week.

The talks will not be the face-to-face meetings the Obama administration had hoped to put in place more than a year after peace efforts broke down amid Israel's military offensive on Hamas-ruled Gaza. The Palestinians have refused to sit down at the same table with Israel until it agrees to freeze all construction in West Bank settlements and in east Jerusalem -- two areas that the Palestinians want for an independent state along with the Gaza Strip.

The indirect talks, with US envoy George Mitchell shuttling between the two sides, were meant as a compromise.
Posted by: Steve White 2010-05-03
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=295909