Other than outright war, seldom have things looked grimmer for Israel and the Palestinians. There are always two sides to a story, of course, and in the Middle East there are often more than two. But in this case, the latest plunge into darkness must be laid squarely at the feet of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. The conservative leader is undoubtedly the Prince of Darkness when it comes to Middle East peace talks. In short, he's against 'em. That's not what he says, of course, but that's what he means.

He and his right-wing Likud party, leaders in a coalition government, essentially favor the wholesale colonization of the occupied West Bank. That's why they push for more and larger Jewish settlements. It's why Netanyahu and the Likud party will not cease all settlement building in order to restart the peace talks. The rights of the Palestinian Arabs, who have been there for millennia, simply don't matter. In their view, Eretz Yisrael (Land of Israel), which traditionally includes the occupied Palestinian territories, is the Jewish homeland, not the Arab homeland.

Netanyahu fundamentally opposed the Oslo Peace Accords, as he and his party believe that "land for peace" is dangerous for Israel, as a Palestinian state would be inimical to Israeli security. At best, the Palestinians might be given greater autonomy, in the forlorn hope that one day the Palestinians will forget they had lived in Palestine for more than a thousand years, and once dreamt of their own country. That was the hope of David Ben-Gurion, one of Israel's principal founding fathers, who said in 1948 that the old Palestinians would die and the young would forget. Much later, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said: "The Palestinians? They don't exist." Both leaders were blind on this issue, blind and profoundly wrong. It is a moral and political blindness that has afflicted Israel since the day of its creation.

More than any other single individual, Netanyahu is responsible for the collapse of the Oslo accords. Though he did withdraw the Israeli army from Hebron, he sought to frustrate the accords at every opportunity. His efforts were successful and largely responsible for the onset of the second Intifada. It is true that earlier this year, in a gesture to the Obama administration, Netanyahu agreed to the creation of a separate Palestinian state. But he circumscribed his agreement with so many unacceptable conditions to Palestinians of any political stripe, that he knew his offer was meaningless, a contemptuous gesture to both President Barack Obama and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.

Rather than accede to Obama's request for a halt in all settlement building activity, Netanyahu has agreed to a partial halt, but one that allows for "natural growth" building in the illegal settlements (and they are all illegal under international law). It is true that his own party insists on settlement building, but Netanyahu could have exercised his acknowledged tough leadership abilities to help bring his party around. As far as we know, he made no such effort. To make matters worse, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Netanyahu's proposed limitations on settlement building "unprecedented." Apparently, that remark was the straw that broke the camel's back. In view of all this weak-kneed approach to a daunting problem, Abbas announced he wouldn't run in the January elections, a decision that, if carried out, would end the prospect of any peace talks at all. Now the Palestinian elections have been postponed, and perhaps Abbas' decision as well.

To make matters worse, the Israeli government announced its decision, in principle, to build some 900 houses in Gilo, a part of East Jerusalem that Palestinians regard as their future capital and the Israelis say is theirs because they annexed East Jerusalem many years ago. The annexation is regarded as illegal under international law, and no nation has recognized Israel's action. The U.S. reacted by saying it is "dismayed" by Israel's action, unusually tough language in diplomacy.

The U.S. has always been Israel's strongest supporter. Since 1972, close to 50 years ago, the U.S. has exercised its veto in the U.N. Security Council 82 times, 40 of which have been in support of Israel. In all of those 40 vetoes, the U.S. has stood alone. Israelis know this. They have a record of turning on Israeli governments that put that support at risk. Presumably President Obama knows this. Presumably Prime Minister Netanyahu knows as well. But does he care?

William M. Stewart, a former U.S. Foreign Service officer and Time magazine correspondent, lives in Santa Fe.