The problem with Olmert's approach is that the Arab world has run out of patience. It is well aware that the Oslo process floundered, at the end, not over customs arrangements and the Palestinian economy, but over borders, Jerusalem and refugees, and those issues are the ones that must be resolved if the process is to be about anything more than marking time.Time is not saying that this is the Arab world's perception - it is saying that it is a fact that the Arab world is "well aware" of.
In other words, Palestinian Arab terror attacks, daily rocket attacks, infighting, constant incitement, Hamas' election and takeover of Gaza have no bearing whatsoever on whether there should be a continuing "peace process." No, Time believes that the real issues are "borders, Jerusalem and refugees": the Arab demands and Israel's refusal to acquiesce to them unilaterally are the only issues stopping progress towards peace!
Similarly, look at this paragraph about Syria implying again that Israel is the obstacle to peace with Syria:
Likewise, time may have run out for peace between Israel and Syria. Since the end of last year, Syria has been repeatedly calling for a resumption of the peace talks of the late 1990s premised on Israel returning the Syrian Golan Heights, captured in 1967. But while Olmert has largely evaded the overtures — questioning their sincerity, quibbling about who if anyone should mediate — Syria may have given up. Last week, the Israeli press was filled with rumors that Iran gave Syria $1 billion to purchase weapons in return for abandoning peace overtures towards Israel.Syria's providing arms to Hezbollah, its deals with Iran, its threats about its own ballisitic missile capability - all ignored by Time. Only Israeli intransigence is at fault.
The entire article does not mention the word "terror" even once.