KEY POINTS:
Even by the dismal standards of Arab-Israeli negotiations, the peace initiative launched by the United States last week has little going for it. All the participants are on weak political ground. Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, was wounded by his ineffectual war with Hizbollah in Lebanon 18 months
ago and survives only because all the parties in his coalition fear an early election. The Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, represents a divided people and is disowned by the Hamas government of Gaza.
And the US President, of course, is now a discredited figure in practically anything to do with the Middle East. The Palestine problem has been merely an afterthought for an Administration that placed its hope in planting a seed of democracy in Iraq. The seed was to spread through the Middle East, removing Israel from the concerns of free, proud and prosperous people. Unfortunately, when given a vote, Arab electorates have preferred religious nationalist parties more ill-disposed to Israel than were the previous regimes.
Now President George W. Bush has decided to use his last year in office to try to broker a breakthrough in the conventional way. He invited Mr Olmert, Mr Abbas and delegates from 50 Arab and other nations to a conference at Annapolis near Washington last week. There, the Israeli and Palestinian leaders agreed to "make every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008".
So, after a seven-year stalemate, the two sides will start talking again next month and, for once, none of the hard issues seem to be off the table before they start. Mr Olmert is not making the impossible demand of Mr Abbas that he stop all Palestinian aggression before talks can begin, and has not ruled out discussing even the return of refugees. That is one hopeful sign. Another, perversely, is the domestic political difficulties of the participants. None of them has much to lose at home by putting all their countries' cards on the table, and each has everything to gain from an agreement.
The broad outline of an agreement remains as well known to both sides as it has been since the Oslo accords a decade ago. Israel will give up most of the West Bank, as it has unilaterally given back Gaza already, in return for security and Palestinian acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.
The "Jewish state" proviso is vital as it precludes the right of Palestinian exiles to return to Israel. If they were permitted to return their numbers would threaten Jewish dominance. The refugee question may not be off the table this time but Mr Abbas will have no illusions about it. He has far more promising avenues for negotiation on the issues of Jerusalem's status and Jewish settlements in the occupied territory.
Israel must expect to give up nearly all of the West Bank and would not be too sorry to do so, for the same reason it has vacated Gaza: the Palestinian population of the territories would challenge Jewish dominance if they were to be included in the state of Israel. It is the precise alignments of the border that will need to be negotiated.
Jerusalem, sacred to both sides and taken by Israel in the 1967 war, will have to be divided or internationally administered. It cannot be the capital Palestinians desire.
The shape of a settlement has long been apparent. What has been lacking is the mutual will and trust to reach it. President Bush has done well to rekindle talks but he will have to remain more engaged than he proved to be a few years ago when he presided over a handshake and promised to "ride herd" on their progress. At least it is a start, again.
