The occupied Palestinian territories have been the largest challenge of the contemporary Middle East political history.

At the backdrop of mounting internal Palestinian tensions paralleled with adamant Zionist expansionist policies, the United States as the most boisterous protagonist of the Palestinian issue floated the idea of 'international' conference set for November.

The agenda of the meeting calls for the formation of an independent Palestinian state in the long haul as well as the establishment of ties between Arab and Israel in the short run.

However, the widening specter of ambiguity over the conference has prompted the White House officials to admit that it is not worth expectations for a lasting peace only as a prelude for one.

These ambiguities stem from the positions and goals of the players of the conference each of whom taking the meeting a failure for one reason or another.

In Palestine alone, there are two sets of distinct views regarding the meeting. The Palestinian movements in tandem with Hamas government in Gaza denounced the conference as Zionist-centered and against the Palestinian cause.

On the other hand, Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) who considers the ongoing compromise approach as the foremost factor to gain his ambitions has carried out many efforts to push a convergence with the Zionist regime.

Nevertheless, having gained nothing from his overtures to Israel, he too takes the fall meeting with a pinch of salt. He has already declared that he would be an absentee in the meeting if the current Israeli aggressions and the Western conspiracy of silence has going to linger.

Abu Mazen has a set of demands from the Zionist regime and America. He wants the two to change their attitude towards the Palestinians so that he could take a robust seat in the meeting. The demand seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

The Zionist regime, suffering a widening domestic crisis, considers the meeting as a strong asset to wrap challenges with the West. It also seeks to use the conference as a tool to heighten pressures on the Palestinians.

However, Tel Aviv too has a share of concerns. It fears that the meeting turns into a lever to force it to give concessions. The Zionist regime has repeatedly warned America that it would be pointless for the fake entity to take part in the meeting as long as Arabs refuse to compromise.

The regime may have unilaterally been trying to press the Arab side through its bungled military efforts including the recent violation of the Syrian airspace.

The Arab countries hold the third angle in the melee. They have already embraced the compromise idea years ago by bringing up a peace initiative which was actually the brainchild of the Saudi King Abdullah.

Inspired by the initiative, they rebuff the fall meeting as a setback and wish to see the agenda of the conference to address the principles set by Saudi King: Return of Palestinian refugees, withdrawal of Zionists from the lands occupied in 1967 by the regime and finally the fate of Beit al-Moqaddas.

Arabs are reluctant to give a pass to the organizers of the meeting as they see America and Israel still adamant to admit the Arab principles otherwise drumming up a unilateral concession spree on the part of Arabs.

Accordingly, Arabs take the meeting as debilitative to their structure and position and so refuse to smile at the organizers. To the same effect, Saudi authorities has reaffirmed the fall meeting risks their rejection unless it is reviewed. 

Meanwhile, the Zionist regime has almost completely shut down transport and trade in and out of the Gaza Strip, and imposed complete closure on both the West Bank and Gaza.