The summit in Geneva tomorrow between the US and Syrian Presidents is seen by Arabs and Israelis alike as the "last chance" to achieve a comprehensive regional settlement in the foreseeable future.
In their first meeting since October 1994, President Clinton is expected to put to President Hafez al-Assad a detailed proposal for a peace deal between Syria, Lebanon and Israel.
Hopes for success are high, according to observers. It is argued that neither leader would have agreed to meet if the outcome had not been guaranteed. Mr Clinton, in his last year in office, wants to realise his heavy personal investment in Middle East peace-making before his term comes to an end. Mr Assad, ageing and ailing, is hoping to regain Syrian land lost while he was defence minister and ensure his succession by a young and in experienced second son, Dr Bashar al-Assad. Neither can afford to fail.
The Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Ehud Barak, is eager for a breakthrough in these talks, and earlier this week reaffirmed commitments made by his predecessors to withdraw from the occupied Golan Heights to the line of June 4th, 1967, Syria's fundamental demand.
To the great relief of Beirut and Damascus, Mr Barak dismissed his army's proposal to retain a buffer zone in south Lebanon and said Israel would pull back to the international border by July. Mr Barak also reversed his demand, rejected by Syria, that "normalisation" should precede withdrawal and is prepared to delay the opening of an Israeli embassy in Damascus until the later stages of the evacuation of the Golan.
While the auguries appear good, White House officials remain cautious, asserting that the outcome of the summit may not be known for a few weeks, and Damascus has sent out contradictory signals.
Syria's official daily, al-Thawra, said the summit's success depended on US readiness to "reactivate its role in the peace process . . . and exert pressure on Israel to abide by the peace option". But the paper of the ruling Ba'ath party, al-Ba'ath, refused to lay the blame for possible failure on Mr Clinton or Mr Assad, who, the editorial said, was travelling to Geneva with a "positive attitude". The paper said the absent Mr Barak bore "full responsibility" for the summit's outcome.
