Within the country, anxiety about the menu of subjects at Annapolis appears to unite two very different constituencies — those prepared to contemplate eventual concessions and those driven more by an ideological opposition to compromise. One is propelled by scepticism in the short term and the other, like the Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu parties in Olmert’s ruling coalition, is worried about the long-term commitments Israel could gain at Annapolis.

The sceptics ask, if Israel were to make concessions on any of the key Palestinian demands — the status of Jerusalem, the return of Palestinian refugees, Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the final borders of a future Palestinian state — would Fatah led by Abu Mazen be able to deliver its side of any deal?

Peres concedes that the failure of Yasser Arafat to deliver on the Oslo accord has left Israelis sceptical about the meeting. But: “You don’t look for the most popular solution but the most promising one.” He believes Abu Mazen, Arafat’s successor, is serious about peace.

It is very difficult, says Peres, to negotiate on behalf of a democratic country. He adds, be careful not to win too much, or you could lose your partner — lose too much, and you could lose your people.

There is, however, a sense among policymakers that Fatah led by Abu Mazen could be made a stronger — and thereby a more durable — negotiator by an Arab/Sunni world in alarm over the Iranian nuclear programme and the extremism shown in Hamas’s takeover of Gaza.

... contd.