A positive sign in Mideast

There certainly has to be renewed hope around the world that peace in the Mideast is a tiny bit closer now than it was a few days ago. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's announcement Friday that Israelis and Palestinians will begin direct peace talks in Washington on Sept. 2 is reason for a bit of cautious optimism. The resumption of peace talks, while important, should not be viewed as a full-scale diplomatic triumph. Much remains to be done. What matters most is what ultimately emerges from discussions that promise to be both arduous and contentious.

The upcoming talks, brokered by special Mideast envoy George Mitchell, will be the first since December 2008, when discussions collapsed over Israel's military offensive in Gaza. Given the ensuing hostility, bringing the parties to the table again required a Herculean effort. Mitchell provided it. He traveled regularly between Israel and the Palestinian territory to convince each side that face-to-face discussions were in their best interest.

The agreement announced by Clinton contains a blueprint for the talks. It's a useful document that should ease the concerns of Israelis and Palestinians even as it promotes the cause of peace. If plans hold, President Barack Obama will meet separately with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Sept. 1. Afterwards, the president will host dinner for the two.

The trio won't dine alone. They'll be joined by others with a direct interest in the Mideast. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, King Abdullah II of Jordan, Tony Blair, the former British prime minister and representatives of the so called "quarter" of Mideast promoters of peace - the United States, the United Nations, the European Union - will join them. Their presence should help set the tone for what follows.

On Sept. 2, direct talks will commence with Clinton serving as moderator. The initial round likely will determine ground rules and create a schedule for additional meetings rather than tackle substantive issues. That's wise. Creating a setting and routine that is non-threatening should pay dividends when discussions move on to important topics.

Those topics are familiar to all. If there is to be peace in the Mideast, the two sides will have to come to an agreement that provides for both Palestinian statehood and for Israeli security. Doing so will involve making difficult decisions about borders, what will happen to millions of Palestinian refugees, and the status of Jerusalem, a city whose symbolism is as potent in this context as its diplomatic and political status. None of those decisions will come easy, especially since the parties involved hope to wrap up talks in a year.

Clinton acknowledged the difficulty Friday, noting that "there have been difficulties in the past, there will be difficulties ahead ... but I ask the parties to persevere, to keep moving forward through difficult times, and to continue working to achieve a just and lasting peace in the region."

The obstructionism already has started. A spokesman for Hamas, the militant group that controls the Gaza Strip and which publicly calls for the annihilation of the Jewish state, promptly denounced the talks. "We ... consider this invitation and the promises included in it empty, and it's a new attempt to deceive the Palestinian people and international public opinion." World leaders, however, were far less incendiary. Many quickly voiced approval of the direct peace talks.

The Obama administration's even-handed Mideast policies, its willingness to engage both Israelis and Palestinians and its quiet but forceful effort to move the peace process forward finally has borne fruit. In a place and at a time where hope for Mideast accord has been more a dream than a reality for a long time, the announcement of talks next month is a positive development.

Upcoming Events