"Frankly it is time for the establishment of a Palestinian state". Monday's welcome pronouncement by US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice in Ramallah indicates that the Bush administration is at last determined to see progress in this most intractable conflict. All the more so because she went on to say the United States sees "a two-state solution as absolutely essential for the future, not just of Palestinians and Israelis but also for the Middle East and indeed to American interests".
The major questions about the new policy are about whether the US is willing to exert real pressure, especially on Israel, to bring about this outcome and whether existing political leaderships are strong and capable enough to deliver on it. There can be no doubt that President Bush badly needs progress towards an agreement. This would, he believes, bolster support for moderate Arab regimes, help undermine support for radical Islamic movements, isolate Iran and take the spotlight off Iraq. It would give him and his subsequent reputation a foreign policy boost as he heads into his last year in office. Previous two-term presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton so benefited following their scandals, even if they were perceived as lame ducks domestically.
Mr Bush faces a particular problem in that he has identified US policy so closely with Israel that he has lost credibility as an independent broker with its antagonists. They are deeply sceptical that he is ready to exert the necessary pressure for a settlement dealing justly with final borders between Israel and a Palestinian state, Jerusalem, Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the return or compensation of Palestinian refugees and water rights. Their scepticism is compounded by Israel's unwillingness to contemplate a joint statement of objectives with the Palestinians, or a timetable for the negotiations. Instead Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, favours a less clearcut declaration of principles ahead of next month's planned talks in Annapolis, Maryland.
Not only is Mr Bush in a weak political position to push for a settlement, but the same applies even more so to Mr Olmert and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas. Mr Olmert has just been served with a third criminal indictment on corruption charges and has low public support. He therefore has an obvious political motive to seek movement in these talks, but lacks the trust and confidence to lead a breakthrough. What this would involve was revealed in his statement on Monday that Israel would be willing to forego large parts of east Jerusalem. But there is little stomach in Israeli public opinion for that, not to mention on the more radical agenda items.
Mr Abbas is equally impaired. He leads a people exhausted by Iraeli occupation and hopeless of lifting its oppressive burden. His legitimacy was undermined by last summer's loss of control in Gaza and the collapse of the coalition with Hamas after that party won last year's Palestinian elections. All this makes progress unlikely, however desirable it remains.