Yesterday's meeting in Jerusalem between Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas signals the start of another effort to open negotiations on reducing tension and prepare the way towards a peace conference on a two-state political settlement.
President George Bush's endorsement of this plan in Washington last night came ahead of a meeting on Thursday of the negotiating quartet made up of the United Nations, the US, the European Union and Russia, which will give Tony Blair his mandate as their representative.
In principle such political movement in this most intractable of conflicts is very welcome, indeed much too long delayed. Its likelihood of making progress depends crucially however on the credibility of Mr Abbas as a negotiating partner following the break-up of the inter-party government between his Fatah party and the Hamas movement which now rules Gaza alone after expelling Fatah security forces this summer. Mr Abbas's decision to impose a Fatah-dominated government appeals to Israel and the US by forswearing further contact with the Islamist movement. In return he is being offered a release of prisoners, an amnesty for wanted militants and transfer of taxes withheld by Israelis, together with Mr Bush's support for an international peace effort.
Mr Bush's portrayal of this as "a moment of choice" between two paths for the Palestinian people - one represented by the moderate government led by Mr Abbas and his Fatah faction and the other that of fundamentalist Hamas - conveniently fills out his world view and fits in very well with Israeli policy. But it is seriously wanting in terms of political legitimacy. Hamas won the last Palestinian elections fair and square on a programme critical of Fatah's ineffective record in office, corruption and nepotism and based on Hamas's capacity to deliver political organisation and welfare on the ground. That appeal has not lost its attractions for ordinary Palestinians despite the dreadful privations they have undergone.
This fact gets lost sight of in the arguments over whether Hamas is a terrorist organisation, a designation accepted by the quartet last year. The ill-considered conditions laid down to ensure Hamas recognises the state of Israel despite the rejectionism of many of its leaders have had a similar effect. There was a failure to understand and encourage its willingness to evolve politically. If serious efforts are not made to draw Hamas into these negotiations and relieve conditions for the people they represent in Gaza and the West Bank, this initiative will be stillborn.