Currently, there are multiple barriers to progress. The governance of both polities is weak and divided. Prime Minister Olmert, while far stronger than he was following the Lebanese war, is still buffeted by corruption investigations, and President Abbas is not even the functioning head of state for a major portion of the territory that is theoretically part of his responsibility. President Bush has been less than helpful for the past seven years, and given that track record, his recent efforts are less than promising.

I like many others believe that the involvement of the United States and other nations is important toward getting serious negotiations started. But the war in Iraq damages the credibility of the United States to be an honest broker. President Bush has from time to time uttered words of encouragement and sent his Secretaries of State and others on missions to the region, but the one consistent pattern through this period has been a consistent failure to be consistently involved. Secretary Rice is in the midst of another of these nice-sounding peace initiatives but, especially given that the days of the current Administration are (thankfully) waning, it is difficult to believe that anything will come of it.

We need an American President who will use the power and leverage of his or her office to bring the parties to the negotiating table and make use of all available carrots and sticks to encourage and push them to a peace agreement. American leadership, exercised in diplomatic concert with the European Community, the Russians, and the United Nations can be powerful and important. Economic incentives can make a great difference, and the offer of a multilateral peacekeeping presence might help, too.

Reconciliation efforts between Israelis and Palestinians at human and community levels are also important. The campaign of Sari Nusseibeh and Ami Ayalon to get grassroots support for negotiations is one good example. They and others have set out to get broad-based expressions of encouragement for the peace process and have added to the sense that the desire for peace is not simply a naive or misguided effort among elites. The various initiatives to demonstrate a tangible desire for progress hardly constitute a tidal wave as yet, but they are worthwhile, and all parties will feel greater urgency and more promise in sitting down to negotiate if there is an expressed sense of support for those purposes.

Of course the barriers are not merely matters of the moment or even of the last six-plus years. On the Israeli side there are sizable groups who are deeply committed to holding on to the West Bank – some because they believe Israel’s security depends on it, some because they believe the Bible commands it, and some who combine the two beliefs. On the Palestinian side there are people who oppose the existence of the state of Israel, and would like to see the Jewish people driven into the sea. The strengthened position of religious zealots on both sides is a destructive force.

It is important to understand that both sides have engaged in actions that constitute obstacles to progress. We all know of the terrorism that has emanated from the Palestinian side. As Israel is a small country, nearly everyone has either lost a family member or knows someone who was killed by a terrorist. Yet there have been civilians killed on the Palestinian side as well. And the settlements that Israel has built on the West Bank are a significant barrier to a peace agreement. The Israeli military checkpoints on the West Bank – perhaps necessary in some number for security – number some 546 in total, not even including border checkpoints. Sad to say, people on both sides who oppose the peace process have timed attacks and provocations to occur at key junctures in negotiations or just as an important meeting was about to occur. The phrase “improvised explosive devise,” or IED, is a recent addition to our vocabulary. It has been a staple for a long time, both literally and figuratively, on the road to peace between Israel and the Palestinian people.

Yet there has been substantial change over the past twenty years. In Israel it was considered radical to call for negotiations that would lead to the creation of a Palestinian state. And it was courageous for a leader on the Palestinian side to call for recognition of the existence of the state of Israel. Things have changed markedly. Polling data in Israel shows a clear majority in favor of a Palestinian state, although there are certainly differences within the Jewish community about the contours and characteristics of the state. President Abbas and other leaders openly espouse negotiations that would lead to a two-state solution. It is a mistake to underestimate the positive changes that have occurred.

I have spent considerable time over the years in talking with people on both sides. There is hatred among some, for sure. But there is much good will as well, and certainly a feeling (however unexpressed) among huge numbers of people that they would just like to live their daily lives in peace. I continue to believe the achievement of that aim is attainable.

Religious leaders around the world can play a role is supporting the substantial elements on both sides who want peace. Cooperation among like-minded people on both sides has been a feature of the process for a long time. Nonetheless, conscious efforts to increase activities directed at reconciliation would be worthwhile and helpful. So would the election of an American President who would make a major effort, as President Clinton did, to help move things along.
No one has special knowledge of what it would take to bring peace. There have been too many false steps and too much failure for anyone to say confidently what would move things forward. What one can say, though, is that politics, economics, religion, and human relationships all have a role to play. In all those realms current efforts are not getting us to where we need to go.

Peter Edelman is professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center.