Window on Israel: A change of tune for Peres?

There are signs of a political earthquake in Israel.
 
They have nothing to do with charges of corruption against the prime minister, or the maneuvering of aspirants to seek advantage in the expected collapse of Olmert's government, or the election that will follow it.
 
The shock appears in comments of the national peacemaker, President Shimon Peres. He said that there is no chance of peace with the Palestinians. 
 
He explained himself by reference to the split between Hamas and Fatah, and the lack of legitimacy of the nominal president of Palestine, Mahmoud Abbas, who is the primary "partner" in current negotiations with Israel. According to a newspaper account, at a meeting that included ambassadors from France and Jordan, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Peres said:

Abbas (has) no support among his people, no power to carry out security agreements . . .   any agreement Israel and the Palestine Authority (make would) crumble a day later due to the Palestine Authority's weakness. Therefore there is no chance of agreement.

Peres has been at the pinnacle of Israelis urging peace with the Palestinians. His mantra has been the New Middle East, with Israel providing investment capital and economic know-how, along with other well-to-do Arab states. He has worked to create Israeli-Palestinian industrial zones, as well as Israeli-Egyptian and Israeli-Jordan joint ventures. He has promoted one or another proposal for peace with Syria and Lebanon. Peres was among the principal promoters of the Oslo Accord with the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1993, for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize along with Yitzhak Rabin and Yassir Arafat.
 
His preoccupation with peace, sometimes at what seemed like "peace at any price," was among the issues that led a majority of the Knesset to choose Moshe Katsav as president in 2000. Katsav received 63 votes in that election to Peres' 57. Peres was a candidate again in 2007. He still provoked suspicion that he would use the presidency to further his obsession with peace. Others thought he was too old to be harmful, and that he had earned the largely ceremonial office after a long career in government. He received less than a majority of Knesset votes, but led with 58 against 37 and 21 votes for two other candidates.
 
What is the significance of Peres' latest statement?
 
It suggests that not many people beside George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice, and perhaps Ehud Olmert are talking about a breakthrough that will create a Palestinian State, or perhaps a bit less than that before the end of the Bush term.
 
The split between Hamas-controlled Gaza and the weak-to-non-existent authority of Abbas' regime in the West Bank should make anyone wonder about the prospects of an agreement. Hamas is explicit in rejecting Israel's legitimacy. Its patron, Iran, has called repeatedly for Israel's destruction. Currently there is a shaky ceasefire between Gaza and Israel. Hamas has violated its part of the agreement by not stopping the occasional missile fired into Israel. In response, Israel has not honored its commitment to keep the gates of Gaza open for the shipment of fuel, food, and other supplies. Hamas, in turn, has suspended conversations about the release of the Israeli soldier being held in Gaza.
 
How long the cease fire will last is anybody's guess.
 
Hamas and the Fatah Party of Abbas have been pushed by other Arab politicians into negotiations about solving their problems and re-creating a united Palestine. The demands of each are far enough apart to convince an outsider that on-again, off-again meetings are not likely to produce anything.
 
Hamas won the last parliamentary election held in all of Palestine. The prevailing opinion is that its victory was due to the widespread feeling among Palestinians that Abbas and other leaders of the Fatah Party are old, corrupt, incompetent, and not concerned with developing Palestine for anyone other than themselves. This explains Peres' statement that Abbas lacks the legitimacy necessary to make an agreement with Israel.
 
Without power, Abbas cannot make concessions. He is not in a position to convince the Palestinians that they should give up any of their iconic demands for the sake of creating a Palestinian state. He keeps talking about the borders of 1967 and the return of refugees. This is the easy road of repeating slogans about Palestinian rights. It is a road to nowhere, but Abbas does not have the gas to take any other road.
 
Peres' comment about no chance for peace with the Palestinians was headlined on the front page of Ha'aretz on Friday, July 4th. By the Sunday edition there may be a clarification. Whatever he may say in the future, the ink is set on what he said. It indicates the work that has to be done to rescue whatever small prospects for peace may exist. Without Peres to carry a major part of that burden, the task is all the more difficult.
 
His comments may not be an earthquake, after all. They may, in contrast, indicate a bit of stability returning after his many efforts to create an earthquake by trumpeting the need for accommodations with Palestinians not ready for peace.