Hope is a flame that flickers weakly and intermittently in the Middle East. But, after months of argument, procrastination and virtual civil war in Gaza, the past three days have provided signs that both Arabs and Israelis are serious about attending the long-mooted peace conference in Annapolis. Yesterday Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, announced that, as a gesture of goodwill, Israel would release about 450 Palestinian prisoners, freeze construction of new settlements in the occupied territories and dismantle illegal outposts set up by Jewish settlers. Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President, who has been engaged in intensive talks with Mr Olmert to find a common agenda for the conference, now appears ready to compromise on a joint declaration on a new “road map” to peace.

Since its launch four years ago, little progress has been made along the existing map. Renewed violence in the Palestinian territories, the change of government in Israel, the Lebanon war and President Abbas's loss of control of Gaza to Hamas has effectively frozen all negotiations. The leadership in both Israel and the Palestinian territories have been too weak for any bold steps, and too fearful of domestic opposition to any concessions. Washington, however, has been commendably persistent. Condoleezza Rice has visited the region every few months, and in the summer launched the proposal for a full conference in Maryland attended not only by Israelis and Palestinians, but by representatives of all the Arab countries crucially affected by a settlement. In particular, Saudi Arabia was persuaded to attend. Although Riyadh has never recognised the state of Israel, the peace proposals by King Abduallah were adopted by the Arab League as the basis for negotiations, and have now been accepted by Israel also as a realistic and comprehensive way to end the debilitating conflict.

Since then, however, the proposals have been in danger, as so often in the Middle East, of being lost in bickering, misinterpretation and a refusal to voice the necessary commitments. The Palestinians want the conference to address core issues such as the borders of a future Palestinian state, shared sovereignty over Jerusalem and the fate of the Palestinian refugees. And they want the Americans to be a party to a three-way committee to oversee implementation of agreements. Israel says the summit should be a launching pad for talks, with discussions on core issues to follow later. They want a US official simply to supervise the process. The Saudis, regarded by all sides as a crucial participant, have been reluctant to take part except on the Palestinian terms.

All sides have come under huge pressure from Washington to compromise. That message has been reinforced by visiting Europeans, including at the weekend David Miliband, and by the increasingly active involvement of Tony Blair, who has just launched what may prove a crucial incentive to the Palestinians — a proposal for infrastructure investment that could create jobs, improve sanitation in the Gaza slums and give the Palestinians a new sense of hope. Mr Abbas does appear to have made important concessions. So, too, has Mr Olmert, who has met sharp domestic resistance to any prisoner release. There is still ambiguity over the settlements. But Israel has been willing to take risks to make possible an agreement thought impossible a few months ago.