That's a long article but hell yeah I'll take that over O'Hanlon.

Timendi causa est nescire - Ignorance is the cause of fear.

a.  This Israel sentence:

Any actual expert on the region, or any sincere person with even
passing familiarity with it would know that genuine peace has always
been easy to achieve, it requires Israel to abandon all its settlements
and occupied territories, allow for the return of the refugees and
compensate them for their dispossession. It also means granting equal
rights to the Palestinian citizens of Israel. The so called "peace
process," nothing of the sort, is merely a way to enshrine the
dispossession of the Palestinians using unpopular but pliant and hand
chosen collaborators like Mahmud Abbas.

 It seems to me, that there are legitimate Israeli concerns here.  For example, "right of return".  That can be defined in really bad ways.  On the other hand, Israel has taken every opportunity to create a large Israel, by the use of expanding settlements, that of course must then be defended by Israel and it's military.

I have my doubts that, even if Gandhi himself were the leader of the Palestinian people, that Israel would accept Gandhi's offer. 

 That doesn't mean that the current leadership IS Gandhi of course.  But is far from it.

b. The second point - I just don't see why, from any type of resource or political perspective, that the settling of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, would make any difference to the political concerns of the Greater Middle East.  It has always seemed a false flag to me, really.  The questions of political and economic competition, aren't altered much that much for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, and Iraq - irregardless of a resolution to Palestine.

Thoughts?