What is Annapolis?

The US has called a meeting to attempt to restart the Middle East peace process, at the naval base in Annapolis, Maryland, near Washington beginning on Monday.

Why haven’t we heard much about it?

Until this week, no one has been sure that it would actually happen. The date, originally set for early this month, has been pushed later and later as possible participants wrestled with an agenda. Invitations went out only on Tuesday this week.

Blockade drains life from Gaza

The movement of goods into Gaza had been intermittent at best since Hamas won Palestinian elections early last year

Multimedia

• Pictures: Johnston is released

• Video: unarmed protester confronts gunman in Gaza

• Pictures: life in Gaza

Background

• Q&A: Hamas and Gaza

• 97 days and counting for BBC's man in Gaza

• Now war is with the enemy within

• The little girl trapped by a quirk of war

Who is going?

Nobody is sure yet. The core is a face-to-face meeting between Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, and Ehud Olmert, the Prime Minister of Israel, brokered by Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State. Representatives from the European Union, United Nations and Arab countries have also been invited and will form a swarm around that core, making contributions of uncertain usefulness.

Why now?

There are several good reasons. One is the desire of the Bush Administration to try to make some progress in its final year. The US is too easily accused of neglecting the issue; true, its bursts of attention have been spasmodic, but the past few years have been a particularly unyielding period on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides.

More recently, “there is a growing understanding in the US that [the Israeli-Palestinian deadlock] needs to be addressed, partly to compensate for other failures in the region, such as Iraq”, argues Mark Heller, director of research at the Institute of National Security at Tel Aviv University.

The rising power of Iran in the region is a second reason. Some analysts from the US and Israel believe that it might be easier for Arab countries to stand up to Iran if Israeli-Palestinian troubles were not a running sore.

Thirdly, and most important, is that the rise of Hamas, the militant Palestinian group that has seized control of Gaza and is trying to extend its support in the West Bank, is an urgent reason to shore up Mahmoud Abbas and his moderate Fatah party.

What is the aim?

There has been a whirlwind of suggestions that the meeting may try to leap straight to some of the “final status” questions that were deferred by the 2003 “road map” until an unspecified point in the future. These include the future of Jerusalem and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

But ambitions for the agenda have dwindled in the past few weeks. The US now has a single real aim: to give Abbas enough trophies to enable him to go home and say: “Look, there are rewards for talking to Israel, rather than threatening it with terrorist attacks.”

The hope is that this injects more determination into talks between Abbas and Olmert that have already been taking place. Even this modest goal will not be easy.

What can Abbas and Olmert deliver?

The biggest problem is the weakness of Abbas and Olmert, although advisers to the Israeli Prime Minister point out that his poll ratings are no longer in single digits. This weakness makes it very hard for either side to make small concessions, never mind overcome the deep reflexes, beliefs and sense of historical entitlement in parts of their communities.

What counts as success?

The bar is very low. Success would be a reaffirmation of the common principles of working towards a “two-state solution”, Israel and a Palestinian state side by side; recognition of Israel’s need for security (the stock phrase that refers to protection from Palestinian terrorism); and the need of Palestinians for a viable economy (at the moment throttled by the seal that Israel has thrown around Gaza, and its clampdown on the West Bank). Throw in trappings such as the presence of Syria, and a Saudi official not below the level of Foreign Minister, and that would do.

Why Syria and Saudi Arabia?

Even if they do nothing, their presence matters – although it is still unconfirmed. Syria, by sending officials, will give a nod to the notion of a peace process, and probably then suggest a mooted plan for a rival conference in Damascus of countries that reject the notion.

Saudi Arabia, whose endorsement is crucial for securing other Arab support, will probably not boycott the meeting; the question is whether it will send an official of sufficient seniority. “Anything less than Foreign Minister would be an insult,” said Heller, “which I don’t think the Saudis are likely to do to the US at this point.”

What is Tony Blair’s role?

Nothing formal, yet as international special envoy, and given his close relationship with President Bush, he will be one of the central figures.

John Ging, director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which delivers aid to more than a million Palestinian refugees in Gaza, argues that the role of the former Prime Minister is important and easily undervalued. “We are positive about the appointment of Tony Blair,” he told a House of Commons committee on Wednesday.

He argued that Blair’s remit – of looking for ways to improve the Palestinian economy and the daily lives of Palestinians – was an essential and urgent component in working towards a solution.

Can we take Annapolis seriously?

It’s hard, but yes. Professional optimists – and most of those who give their lives to the cause of Middle East peace are of necessity of this breed - subscribe to the philosophy that it is always good to talk. Even if that seems trite, this is a good time for another attempt – not because either side is strong enough to make the concessions that have proved so elusive, but precisely because of the new mutual sense of threat and urgency. A deal may be as hard as ever to reach, but the consequences of failure are clearly becoming worse.

Times Recommends

• Police beg us for food. What hope is there?
• Moral darkness that engulfed Baby P
• More to Advent than cheap chocolate