The first scheduled meeting between the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, and the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, as part of the recent round of negotiations, took place this week (12 December). The United States' initiative, launched last month in Annapolis, brought Israeli and Arab leaders together with the intention to broker talks on 'a new era of peace'. The US administration is not least among those who hope the process will bear fruit. President George Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have been working for six months to bring all the parties together.
The process bears striking similarity to the Clinton Administration's efforts exactly seven years ago. Then President Bill Clinton, also nearing the end of his days in the top job, brought the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to Camp David in what some saw as a last-ditch effort to leave his mark on the conflict. Whether it was an exercise in self-promotion or sincerity that sparked the talks, all hopes were dashed when the meeting collapsed and the Palestinians launched the second intifada.
The failure of 2000 is one in a long line of unsuccessful endeavours to address the conflict that has consumed the Middle East for 60 years. So while the scepticism that has led many commentators to doubt the potential of the Annapolis process is understandable, the latest peace talks are not without hope.
The meeting of the Israeli and Palestinian leaders for the first time in seven years has been a substantial achievement. Also at the table were the Syrian and Saudi Arabian foreign ministers. Syrian participation was only secured in the week of the conference upon assurance that the Israeli occupied Golan Heights would be on the agenda. Something of a quiet bear in the region, Saudi Arabia was also a vital attendee and only declared its participation in the lead-up week.
Beyond its logistical successes, the Annapolis agenda made an explicit commitment to achieving a peace treaty and referred to the 'core issues' of the conflict, considered to be that of Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements and Jerusalem. It is widely accepted that for any lasting resolution to be reached, these three issues must be decisively addressed.
This will involve concessions on both sides of the conflict and the deliverance of bad news to home populations. Olmert needs to tell the Jewish settlers on occupied land that they no longer have