US Secretary of State John Kerry claims to be optimistic about getting a peace deal between Israel and Palestine within nine months.

But few in the Middle East share his confidence and many in Palestine are calling on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to break off negotiations.

That call is supported by the Palestinian People's Party, of which Ghasoub Ghadban is a member. But why?

"We made the call back in September, jointly with two other constituent members of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine," Ghadban says.

"We did so because of Israel's decision to authorise the construction of 24,000 new settlement units on the only free land remaining between east Jerusalem and the West Bank.

"It made it clear that Israel currently has no intention of restoring the 1967 borders, with a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem and a right of return for refugees, as specified in UN security council resolution 194."

Ghadban argues that Israel's current objective is to force the Palestinian Authority to agree land swaps that will give a permanent legitimacy to the illegal occupation of the West Bank.

He points out that Kerry himself has stated that - as a condition for negotiations - 85 per cent of the illegal settlements should stay.

And Israel's announcement of even more settlement building was the final straw.

Ghadban notes that it even proved too much for the European High Commissioner for External Affairs Catherine Ashton, who was forthright in her condemnation of Israel's position.

"Let me reaffirm the long-held position of the EU that settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two-state solution impossible," she said.

"All settlement activity, including in east Jerusalem, should cease immediately. New construction plans should be abandoned."

Ashton's statement greatly angered the Israeli government, particularly since it also "condemns in the strongest terms continuing settler violence and deliberate provocations against Palestinian civilians."

The EU shift was very significant for Palestine and made it extremely important to expose the fraudulent character of current negotiations, according to Ghadban.

"They are designed to sap international solidarity and at the same time to drop the ceiling on the issues open for discussion," he says.

So how does the PPP see the way forward now?

"The first objective must be to end divisions in Palestine and secure agreements between Hamas and the PLO on the way forward.

"We believe that recent changes make this more likely."

The party also wishes to secure UN recognition of Palestine as a member state.

Some progress was made in 2011, when it gained observer status, but the PPP holds that full membership would make it far more difficult for Israel and the US to challenge the legitimacy of the 1967 borders and turn the negotiations into a limited and destructive discussion of land swaps.

And it argues that overwhelming international support will be required to force a genuine resumption of negotiations by Israel on the terms laid out in UN resolutions.

"The PPP remains committed to a two-state settlement but we will need far more urgent solidarity and understanding if Israel and the US are not to irretrievably block this solution," Ghadban says.

How do wider changes in the Middle East affect Palestine?

The past year has seen a number of major changes.

Probably the most important, Ghadban feels, is the split in what is described as "political Islam" and how that affects US policy.

Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the majority of the Gulf states have moved decisively against the Muslim Brotherhood, while Turkey and Qatar remain in support.

In the wake of the Arab Spring, the US saw the Brotherhood as a stabilising force in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya - conservative, committed to co-operation with neoliberal economic policies and yet operating through ostensibly democratic procedures.

Turkey's support for it was also key since it is a Nato power of key regional importance for the US.

In Syria, the Brotherhood emerged as a dominant force among groups organised in the Free Syrian Army and the "national coalition" seeking to overthrow the government. Funding came from Qatar and military support from Turkey.

On the other hand, for the ruling princes in Saudi Arabia these developments caused increasing alarm.

"The Muslim Brotherhood's populism was directly threatening their own style of autocratic rule," Ghadban says.

"Its version of Islam was incompatible with the Saudi medievalised Wahhabism and its takeover of Egypt, by far the biggest Arab state by population, was seen as a dangerous shift in the wider balance of power."

In the summer of 2013 Saudi Arabia moved. It stepped in to support the Egyptian army when the US withdrew funding.

Its nominees displaced those of Qatar in the leadership of Syria's "national coalition," leading to bitter fighting on the ground between rebel brigades and allowing further advances by al-Qaida.

A month later there was a change in Iranian foreign policy, with overtures to Qatar and to the US for a deal that would lift sanctions.

The resulting interim agreement has angered Israel and diplomatically isolated its leader Benjamin Netanyahu.

What are the implications for Palestinian peace talks?

Inside Israel Netanyahu has been politically weakened. The EU countries have moved to a far more explicit condemnation of Israeli intransigence.

The US needs to re-establish its credibility across the region after being repeatedly outmanoeuvred by Russia in Syria, Iran and Egypt.

"The delicate situation in US-Israel relations makes international pressure for a just settlement for Palestine in line with UN resolutions more important than ever," Ghadban says.

It's therefore particularly fitting that the UN general assembly has just declared 2014 the Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.