Op-Ed Columns

The ink on the Israeli-Palestinian statement is dry, the delegates have gone home and diplomatic security details no longer crowd downtown Annapolis. Now what?

With all-too typical cynicism, skepticism and downright opposition on full display before the sessions began, the safe bet was against achievement in Annapolis. Last week's landmark Mideast peace meeting bore pointed intellectual arguments from sharp analysts for whom critique is stock-in-trade, and equally vociferous opposition from radicals who have used violence to kill brave leaders working for peace and terrorize the silent majorities who pragmatically support a two-state solution.

Nevertheless, three essential tasks emerge if you stand back and look at the big picture:

n Take stock. With a few weeks remaining in 2007, it is amazing to see where things stand compared to a year ago. Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas, the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, have been meeting regularly for months, developing a genuine ability to communicate beyond the stiff pleasantries of diplomatic protocols. This developing relationship is laying the foundation for a new, albeit narrow, opening for progress.

Their joint statement laid out specific commitments and set a goal for reaching a peace treaty "resolving all outstanding issues" by the end of 2008. Although much work remains ahead, this statement presents an opportunity for those supporting a sustainable and enduring Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Annapolis helped achieve important gains beyond the Israeli-Palestinian track. Despite naysayers' sniping, getting an inclusive group from this troubled region together was no small task. After years of seeking to isolate Syria, the United States shifted its approach, inviting the Syrians to join the party. Israel's growing recognition of the import of the Arab Initiative is notable, too.

Getting Saudi Arabia — which faces a domestic constituency that includes some of the most conservative and extremist opponents to the peace process — also was not simple. Though inclusiveness and broader participation is largely symbolic, symbolism matters, too, particularly at an early stage of trying to restart a process.

n Acknowledge the challenges. A real opening was achieved last week. The next step is to embrace the challenges that lie ahead while acknowledging that the tasks are difficult. Pragmatic recognition of the scorecard of issues to be addressed is a key step in planning for forward movement. It is also important for holding everyone accountable to commitments made.

The work is considerable for both Israelis and Palestinians on the security front. Palestinians face a major challenge in achieving political consolidation that can serve as a foundation for stability and prosperity. They will need considerable outside help to re-establish law and order, disband independent militias and stop rockets from being fired into Israeli territory by terrorists. Gaza presents particular challenges after the violent coup conducted by Hamas in June.

The international community must dedicate more efforts to addressing the humanitarian implications facing the 1.5 million Gazans as a result of a lack of security and a largely stifled economy. Israel also must freeze settlement activity, remove illegal settlement outposts and make preparations for relocating settlers as borders are determined in final status negotiations.

Finally, Israeli and Palestinian leaders must prepare their publics for difficult compromises on the toughest issues — including refugees, Jersualem, final borders and the status of settlements.

n Make a plan to meet the challenges. The Annapolis joint understanding sets a goal of getting this done by 2009. That's a tall order, but timelines and goals like this have a way of focusing attention and motivating parties to get things done.

In addition to the joint declaration, last week's meetings produced a new effort for monitoring the security situation and developing a more sustainable security framework. The appointment of the widely respected and politically skilled James L. Jones, the former NATO commander given a broad mandate to deal with security issues bilaterally and regionally, signals that the United States is committed to achieving progress on this key front.

Follow-up meetings are planned, including an international donors conference on Dec. 17, a potential meeting in Russia and more sessions of the Middle East Quartet, which also should find a way to engage the Arab Follow Up Committee, the involvement and support of which proved valuable at Annapolis.

After Annapolis, those interested in reviving the Middle East peace process face a fundamental choice: Role up your sleeves and dedicate your efforts to help leaders move the process forward, or continue offering up Monday-morning-quarterback analyses that do little to advance the cause.

After seven difficult years in the Middle East, cynicism and naysaying is understandable, but this leaves us nowhere. What is the alternative to the Annapolis formula? A center that literally does not hold: a growing security vacuum, pragmatists with nothing to show for their willingness to negotiate, extremists on both sides prevailing. This alternative damages U.S., Israeli, Palestinian and regional interests and makes life no better for the people impacted by the conflict. We choose the Annapolis route, bumpy as it may be.

Mara Rudman and Brian Katulis are senior fellows who work on Middle East Progress, a project of the Center for American Progress. Web site: middleeastprogress.org.