George W. Bush achieved what he wanted at Annapolis – a big international presence, a historic handshake between enemies and rare applause for finally doing something right in the Middle East. But if his intention is, as he says, to bring peace to the region – rather than simply polish his disastrous image – the priority now must be on substance rather than form.
No one should be under the illusion that Israelis and Palestinians can, on their own, reach the necessary concessions. So paving the road to a lasting peace will require an American engagement that combines pressure and a willingness to put forward essential compromises.
Now that he has been forced to take the same path as his much-criticised predecessor, Mr Bush should also embrace the parameters introduced by Bill Clinton in his last days in office, and later more fully negotiated by Israelis and Palestinians in 2001 in their meetings at Egypt’s Taba resort.
The elements of a peace settlement are no longer a mystery, nor do they require 12 months of negotiations. They were outlined in the Clinton parameters and in the 2002 Arab League proposal. They entail Arab normalisation of relations with Israel in return for a Palestinian state on almost all the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as the capital, and a just solution for Palestinian refugees, which will largely translate into fair compensation rather than repatriation.
This is not an ideal time for peacemaking. The Palestinians are divided. Mahmoud Abbas, the president, has lost the Gaza Strip to the Islamist Hamas. And Hamas’s exclusion from peace talks undermines its legitimacy. In Israel, too, Ehud Olmert is weak, his government coalition shaky. In Washington, Mr Bush is an unpopular president whose attention will inevitably be diverted to Iraq and Iran over the next year.
Mr Bush’s record on intervention in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict also is not encouraging: he told Israel in 2004 that it could essentially annex Jewish settlements around Jerusalem, giving away one of the Palestinians’ few negotiating cards without offering them anything in return.
But there has never been an easy time to resolve the Middle East dispute. What started at Annapolis could well be the last chance for the two-state solution to the conflict. With Gaza going its own way, the West Bank separated into isolated enclaves, the prospects of an independent Palestinian state living in peace with Israel are rapidly slipping away.
Mr Olmert warned this week that the alternative – the one state solution – could threaten the existence of the Jewish state. This is all the more reason for Mr Bush to act as an honest and determined broker and help create a viable Palestine.
16.2% 
60.5% 
