Mideast peace talks: the triumph of hope

As diplomats convene in Annapolis, Md., for a Middle East peace conference, the expectations bring to mind a Samuel Johnson quote about "the triumph of hope over experience."

He was talking about second marriages, but optimism is triumphant as the Bush administration makes its first sustained effort to broker a regional accord. President Bush had scorned and avoided the intense involvement of President Clinton in earlier, unsuccessful attempts to persuade the Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate a sustainable peace agreement.

Success at Annapolis might be a timetable for more talks that carry through the end of the current administration. Credit would accrue for any eventual success, but there would be no obvious fingerprints on failure.

More than 40 countries and international organizations have rallied to provide a chorus of support. But the talks always boil down to the elemental components across the table from one another.

Are Israel's neighbors ready to acknowledge its right to exist? Not live in peace, but exist. Is Israel any more willing to literally give ground in the name of ending bloodshed? Another basic decision is Israel accepting the right of return for Palestinians displaced from their homes.

Borders. Settlements. Refugees. The key words have not changed, but the players have.

All the good work one wishes to come from such a conference has to be explained and sold back home. As Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert talks peace on Chesapeake Bay, he is under criminal investigation for his financial dealings. The Palestinians are not unified enough to order a sandwich. Saudi Arabia was dragged into making an appearance.

Failure and disappointment are so predictable that trying is respected. Everyone is eager to applaud progress. There is also simple curiosity to discover who risked the most in a serious effort.