Can someone explain to me two things......

[Pert_UK]

1. How can Bush and Sharon have their plans taken seriously when they have excluded any discussion with the Palestinian authorities?

I'm not being odd or taking one side over another here, but I just don't get it. It's akin to a husband agreeing divorce terms with his own lawyer, but not getting the approval of his wife and her lawyer.

I can understand the US providing mediation, facilitation and encouragement during the whole negotiation process, but what I can't understand is how the US & Israel making agreements is of any consequence if the Palestinians aren't involved as well.

What is the US bringing to the table here? Why is the situation any better now?

2. How can Israel assert its own "right of return" to land that its ancestors left 2,000 years ago, but simulataneously deny Palestinians the right of return to homes they left 50 years ago?

I'm not asking for a "political argument" on this one, I'm asking how, in practice, Israel is doing this.

As an addition, if one were to recognise Israel's right of return after 2,000 years, does this have signficant impact on other issues. For example, if Israel still has this right after so long, don't the descendants of slaves have a right to compensation for something that only happened 100 - 200 years ago?