Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, said yesterday that he would attend next week's Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland. Syria might also attend, although it is not clear at what level. The two last building blocks appear to be in place for an event which will relaunch Israeli-Palestinian peace talks for the first time in seven years. The real question is: will any of the noble declarations that we will get next week - from Mahmoud Abbas, Ehud Olmert and George Bush - mean anything? Bill Clinton peered at the political horizon in the Middle East in a speech in 2000. Mr Bush restated the long view four years later. Why will a third such tour d'horizon make any difference?
Of all the weak leaders present, none will be more so than the Palestinian president. He does not have to be dragged to the table, as Arafat was to Camp David in 2000. But he goes to Annapolis as the leader of only half his people. To the other half, who are locked up in a prison called Gaza, Mr Abbas has to show that engagement with Israel brings concrete benefits. Hamas argues that only force works with Israel. Mr Abbas has to show that politics can bring down roadblocks.
Mr Olmert's domestic opponents may have underestimated the premier's talents for political survival. But the fact remains that all Israel's ideas - land for peace and unilateral disengagement - are exhausted. Mr Olmert's relationship with Mr Abbas is the only political asset he has got left. Some in Israel argue that a two-state outcome is more likely than a two-state solution, that de facto coexistence can be achieved without a comprehensive peace agreement.
But even this more modest goal would require tangible benefits for Palestinians, which - for all the talk - have yet to be delivered. Israel is behaving as if a two-state solution has an indefinite shelf life. But it does not: the country faces the prospect of fighting for its life as a Jewish majority state before Arab demography overtakes it. Mr Bush, too, needs something to go right, when all other US ventures have turned to dust - Iraq, Lebanon, democratising the Middle East. The president's real concern in this whole process may be that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict complicates the ability of Sunni states to line up against Iran.
It is not difficult to be dismissive about the meeting. But the bottom line is that if Annapolis is a sideshow, a fig leaf for the status quo, an appearance of movement designed to disguise the deep entrenchment of the winning side, then where and when are the real issues going to be tackled? There is no credible alternative to the peace process that Annapolis is designed to set in motion. But that does not mean the 1.4 million Gazans - who are locked out of the talks that will take place next week by dint of the fact that they are ruled by a rejectionist group, Hamas - can be forgotten.
For the time being, it suits the leaders of Fatah to keep the screws on Hamas. Palestinian pollsters are noting a decline in support for Hamas in Gaza, as the gap between its promises and the grind of daily life increases. This may encourage Fatah to continue a campaign in which they outdo Israel in their hardline approach to the rulers of Gaza. If Annapolis is used to cement the deepening divide of the Palestinian people, that will ultimately be its undoing, as well as that of Mr Abbas. It only takes one Qassam rocket to hit an Israeli nursery, or one major suicide bombing in Israel, and all bets will be off again. Indeed an Israeli military incursion into Gaza could be more - not less - likely after a successful conference in Maryland. Annapolis will only work if both the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships are forced to implement the declarations they make. Mr Abbas has to reunify the Palestinian people, whether he likes it or not. Israel has to make life more tolerable for Palestinians on the ground. If either happened it would be progress indeed.
Front Page Features