From the editor’s desk

On the peace road again

The stakes could hardly be higher, but so are the odds. The international peace conference convened by President George Bush in Annapolis in the United States has brought together more than 40 states and international agencies in the search for the most elusive peace deal of all, one between the state of Israel and its hostile neighbours. The burden of the search for peace lies mainly on the shoulders of the Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, who rules the West Bank but whose administration was evicted from Gaza by Hamas (which is not attending the conference); and on Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, leader of an unpopular coalition in a nation that is tired of violence and may be ready for a deal. But there is a supporting cast of hundreds, Britain among them, and with Tony Blair, international peace broker, in the shadows.

The only certainty is that success in these negotiations before the deadline set by Mr Bush at the end of next year will require painful concessions if Palestinians and Israelis are to find common ground. And this explains the presence of such a large international gathering, for the role played by outside pressure on these two will prove crucial. In the Palestinian case, it will be pressure from other Arab nations and the EU; in the Israeli case, pressure above all from the host nation, the United States. If Mr Olmert and Mr Abbas eventually walk away from Annapolis with any sort of deal, it will be attacked by their powerful political enemies as a betrayal. They have to be able to demonstrate that they had virtually no choice and that the pressure on them was too formidable to resist.

The weakness in this game plan is America itself, which has displayed under Mr Bush an erratic attitude to the Middle East peace process. As Israel's generous financial and military backer, America has enormous influence over Israeli policy but has often been slow to exert that influence. This used to exasperate Mr Blair who as British Prime Minister saw a Middle East settlement as fundamental to the pacification of the region and indeed of the globe. For the moment he seems to have persuaded Mr Bush to keep his nose to the grindstone. Despite all these favourable omens, however, the fact remains that the Palestinian and the Israeli shopping lists in Annapolis hardly seem to refer to the same world. Israel wants permanent guarantees of its security; the Palestinians want the demolition of the very wall that Israel has built to achieve that. The Palestinians want Jerusalem as the capital of an Arab state; the Israelis say it is theirs to keep. Refugees want the right to return to the properties they left in 1948, to which the Israelis reply that the Jewish character of the state would not survive such an influx. The issue of the large Israeli settlements on the West Bank - said by the Palestinians to be built in violation of international law and by the Israelis to be non-negotiable - seems insuperable. And so on. But if the respective publics can begin to sense a solution in the making, some of these positions may soften, and solutions emerge. That is likely to happen only if the pressure is kept up. If Mr Bush's concentration flags yet again, Annapolis will be a signpost to nowhere.