Editorial: Let the real work begin in the Middle East

Opinion

Successful summits need not be the product of 11th-hour agreements hammered out after a lot of table-thumping and arm-twisting. Sometimes it is enough that a meeting affirms a changed climate. Such will be the legacy of the talks between the new Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at Sharm el-Sheikh, which ended with the declaration of a ceasefire.

After four years of armed confrontation, both leaders were too wary of the obstacles ahead to think in terms of dramatic breakthroughs. Charting moves towards a Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel will, as a multitude of past failures suggests, be a case of step by painstaking step. Nonetheless, it is clear that the two men recognised the chance for progress. That, as the American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put it, "this is a time of opportunity and it is a time that we must seize". Each was, therefore, prepared to offer concessions.

For Mr Sharon, this involved a more unequivocal ceasefire declaration than seemed likely before the summit. "Today ... we agreed that all Palestinians will stop acts of violence against all Israelis everywhere and in parallel, Israel will cease military activity against all Palestinians anywhere," he said. Israel had approached Sharm el-Sheikh seemingly willing to talk about limited security issues but loath to call a formal halt to military operations. Even its conciliatory gesture of releasing 900 Palestinian prisoners had become so problematic that it had had to be shuffled off to a joint committee.

Mr Abbas' concessions were more substantial. He has declared a truce without any agreement that the Israelis will freeze settlement expansion. Or even a hint that they will take a more reasonable view of his attempts to rein in the militants of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Those two groups went along with a de facto ceasefire in the lead-up to the summit, but now say they do not consider themselves bound by the formal truce. The first test for the fragile peace will be Israel's response to any breaches by such hardliners. It is to be hoped it will concentrate on the approach adopted by Mr Abbas, and the solid Palestinian backing for his presidency, and keep isolated attacks in perspective.

Israel should also stop badgering Mr Abbas to crush the militants. That is a recipe for civil war, an outcome that would benefit nobody. Mr Abbas should be able to pursue his policy of co-opting the militants to his cause. If the Palestinian people can see him making progress towards statehood, the tactics of Hamas and Islamic Jihad will soon be rendered redundant.

In that respect, Mr Abbas has gained significantly from the summit. In the short time since the death of Yasser Arafat, he has shown he can influence the course of events. The momentum must not slow, even if there are more substantive, and far more difficult, issues ahead. The likes, for example, of the release of Palestinian prisoners said by Israel to have blood on their hands, the "right of return" of Palestinians to land in what is now Israel, and the Palestinians' ambition to establish their capital in East Jerusalem.

Israel may well be content to drag the chain on such matters. In that respect, the US has an important role. Confidence in Mr Abbas is the cornerstone of a more balanced Bush Administration approach. He is seen as the vehicle for putting its "road map" for peace back on track. The US must ensure Israeli intransigence does not undo him. Israel has, as Condoleezza Rice also said, some "hard decisions" to make.

Palestinians will continue to support their moderate President's strategy as long as they see progress. At the moment most are weary of war, and willing him to succeed. But if they see him flailing ineffectually, they will be more inclined to back the militants. It is, therefore, in Israel's interests to enter serious negotiations. As it is in the White House's interest to ensure they proceed promptly.