A biweekly feature of news and opinion pieces from the Israeli and Palestinian press.

1.) Bowing to pressure from Israel, the United States has withdrawn the grants of seven Palestinian Fulbright scholars-to-be. Analyst Daniel Levy, over at his blog, writes that such a decision is shameful; moreover, he notes, it is a stunning testimony to the diminished stature of the Bush administration. If American officials are unable to force concessions from Israel on issues as minor as this one, Levy wonders, how can they honestly believe that they have what it takes to broker a viable Israeli-Palestinian peace accord?

Think about it–since the Annapolis peace conference last November, the Administration has been talking about peace in our time–by the end of ‘08. Official declarations have focused on freezing settlements, freezing checkpoints, negotiating final borders, and proving to the Palestinian public that Hamas is not the answer. All sounds nice. And then there were the seven students from Gaza. Seven students–they can’t get seven students out of Gaza in order to study in the U.S. and benefit from the scholarships they probably worked so hard for. Do they assume that ending the historic conflict is a cake-walk in comparison?

2.) Tangential, but nonetheless interesting news from the Israeli press: A new website allows people to say prayers at the Wailing Wall…from the comfort of their own home. According to the article: “People e-mail [website creator] Batya [Burd] with their problems, hopes and fears, regarding marriage, health or business success, and make a donation toward families and selected Torah institutions in Jerusalem. In return, Batya hires an Orthodox man (there’s no choice of a woman) who acts as a proxy and prays for the donor at the Western Wall, for 40 consecutive days. ”

3.) Most Israeli analysts appear to agree that the Syrian-Israeli peace discussions are likely to go nowhere. A variety of reasons are often given - that Prime Minister Olmert is too weak, that Syria is just posturing for international sympathy, and that the United States will intentionally try to sink such an accord. Jonathan Spyer, who is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center, has a unique explanation for why he believes hopes should not be raised in expectation of a breakthrough. In an op-ed for Haaretz, he makes the fascinating argument that Syria will not agree to a comprehensive accord while its ally, Iran, is ascendant in the region. With Iranian influence rising in Lebanon, Iraq, and Palestine, Damascus would never agree to sever such an important strategic tie in exchange for peace, Spyer argues.

The revelation of negotiations with Syria last week came wrapped in the packaging of a diplomatic breakthrough. But it was nothing of the kind. The basic flaw relates not to Israeli domestic politics (though this may certainly be a factor). The reason why the current negotiations are almost certain to lead nowhere relates to the Syrian regime, and to its perception of its own interests. Syria should not be expected to break with Iran, for the following, central reason: The Iranians and their friends are winning. The Iran-led bloc can look around the region today, and feel a quiet sense of satisfaction. In all the various areas in which it is engaged in its long war with the West, Iran is gaining ground.

…Hezbollah’s new strength in Beirut will enable it to block and perhaps kill the tribunal investigating the murder of former prime minister Rafik Hariri. The tribunal has been one of the chief fears of the Assad regime since the assassination, in February 2005. More fundamentally, the rise of Hezbollah to the status of arbiter of power in Lebanon represents a very significant and clear gain for the Iran-led bloc in what has been one of the key arenas of its contest with the United States and its regional allies.

Now, if Syria were to depart the Iran-led bloc, its place in all of this would evaporate: no more blocking of the Hariri tribunal, because there would be no more backing of Hezbollah. No return to Lebanon - with its many economic opportunities - because its new American friends will want to respect Lebanese sovereignty. No more influence over the Palestinians through the support of Hamas. Instead, the Assad regime would gain the basalt plateau of the Golan Heights - the absence of which causes it no tangible discomfort - and would in return become a vulnerable, minority-led dictatorship with no immediately obvious justification for its own existence.

4.) Israel, as well as the United States and several other countries, has refused to agree to a treaty to ban cluster bombs. So far, the international accord has been signed by 111 nations. Israeli officials argue that such weapons are vital for waging war; indeed, despite complaints from human rights groups (not to mention residents), the IDF used cluster bombs extensively in southern Lebanon during the 2006 war with Hezbollah.

5.) A recent poll has found that Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party is now extremely strong amongst the Israeli electorate. If new elections were held, Likud would capture 29 seats in the country’s 120-seat parliament. Kadima would come in second with just 23 seats.