The only point lacking, in my opinion, is that the author fails to explore the real repercussions of the utter absence of the U.S. Israel is negotiating (at least indirectly) in an expectation that the U.S. will be passive. While the U.S. is still a guarantor of Israel's survival, it is not attempting to influence the talks in either direction -- a marked change from the past when the U.S. either pressed Israel for concessions and promised rewards to negotiating partners or (in the Bush administration) signaled a willingness to give Israel diplomatic support for its military operations.
I have written previously of the problem of the U.S. as a "moral hazard" to political reconciliation in Iraq. The ability of the U.S. to force results and/or provide benefits warps behavior. It may be that in the absence of an active U.S. presence, but with a sufficient presence to provide stability, parties will become more willing to deal.