Like Bill Clinton, has George W. Bush left it too late in his presidency to commit the US to mediating a peaceful settlement in the Middle East? Critics will ask. But the more pragmatic question should be, can he deliver? After inviting leaders from Israel and the Palestinian Authority to Annapolis in November, with a supportive cast of representatives from Arab nations, this week he visited Jerusalem and Ramallah. As he must have found out after bad weather forced him to cover the distance between the two cities by road, the two cities are just 10 miles apart. But the positions of the Israeli and Palestinian spokespersons remain as apart as they were when Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat failed to go the last stretch after Clinton got them together at Camp David in 2000. Yet, a faint optimism is in the air.

This is because the calendar, in Israeli President Shimon Peres’s words, is impatient. When Arafat refused to take what was in hindsight a good deal, he was driven by the idea that his successors could accuse him of not striking a tough enough bargain. Today, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas knows that he is the last man standing who can, to whatever extent possible, carry the Palestinians with him. Yes, Hamas is in control of Gaza. But that makes a hastened peace settlement even more valuable for him. A peaceful, economically vibrant West Bank is Fatah’s best hope of winning Gaza’s residents away from the extremist grip of Hamas.

... contd.