Opinion: 5 Reasons the Mideast Talks Aren't Hopeless

(Aug. 26) -- When it comes to the Middle East, my mantra has long been: It can always get worse.

But as Israel and the Palestinians begin yet another effort to resolve their bitter conflict, there are grounds for cautious optimism.

The outlines of a settlement have been clear for years. Israel would retain large blocs in the West Bank near Jerusalem, share Jerusalem with the Palestinians and get rock-solid security assurances from the United States. Palestinian refugees could return but only to a new Palestinian state.

Both sides would benefit from a settlement. Israel needs one soon if it is to retain its democratic character and counter growing international efforts to delegitimize it. Palestinians also need a solution to avoid having more land taken by Jewish settlers.

West Bank Palestinians have made progress creating the institutions of a state. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, a U.S.-educated former official with the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, new security forces built with the assistance of the U.S. have worked so well that Israel has reduced checkpoints that used to cripple Palestinian freedom of movement.

The Arab League has endorsed the talks. And the leaders of Egypt and Jordan will attend a kickoff dinner with President Barack Obama on Sept. 1. This contrasts with the hastily arranged Camp David summit of 2000, when Palestinians were pressured to make compromises without the chance to obtain the prior support of Arab allies.

The Obama administration is committed to making these talks work. Unlike George W. Bush, who waited until the last year of his second term to make Arab-Israeli peace a priority, President Obama, on the second day of his presidency, appointed former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell as his special Mideast envoy. Mitchell has been doggedly laying the groundwork for negotiations. He has a record of success in Northern Ireland that equips him to deal with the Middle East. The U.S. has also set a one-year deadline for a deal and made it clear that it will table its own proposals if the two sides fail to make progress -- something the Bush administration refused to do.

Despite these positive factors, the case for pessimism is easy to make.

The first major challenge will come Sept. 26, when a 10-month partial Israeli moratorium on settlement building in the West Bank is due to expire. If Israel doesn't extend the moratorium, the Palestinians have vowed to walk out.

There is also the question of leadership. Neither Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has shown himself to be a visionary or charismatic figure.

Netanyahu is hamstrung by a right-wing coalition that opposes concessions on key issues such as Jerusalem. He would most likely have to reconfigure his Cabinet -- bringing in the centrist Kadima party and jettisoning the right-wing "Israel is our Home" party -- to gain backing for a deal.

Abbas has an even bigger problem. Gaza is controlled by the rival Hamas movement, which has denigrated negotiations and refuses to recognize Israel. Abbas will have to produce an agreement that contains such obvious gains that even Hamas will feel obliged to accept it.

Obama, meanwhile, has plenty of other priorities, from the anemic U.S. economy to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Still, he understands that Arab-Israeli peace could bring huge dividends for the United States in countering the anti-American narrative so prevalent in the Muslim world -- a narrative exploited by terrorists.

Perhaps one reason so many Americans believe, incorrectly, that Obama is a Muslim is because he has shown real understanding of Muslim views about the open wound that is the Arab-Israeli dispute.

That understanding, coupled with firm security guarantees to Israel, could produce the breakthrough that has eluded so many of Obama's predecessors and could provide, retroactively, grounds for his Nobel Peace Prize.