A year ago, almost no-one believed the war in Iraq could be won. American voters, tired of spending blood and treasure on a conflict that seemed to have no end in sight, handed George W. Bush’s Republicans a crushing defeat in mid-term elections. In Washington, Republican lawmakers and commentators fell over themselves in their haste to distance themselves from Bush. In Iraq, Shiites and Sunnis alike grimly concluded that a US withdrawal was imminent, and began positioning themselves for the civil war would inevitably follow.

Then, something unexpected happened. Instead of rising further and developing into an all-out war, the sectarian violence began to drop. At first, nobody knew quite what to make of it, and even suspected the Pentagon of statistical skulduggery. MoveOn.org, a prominent activist group, accused General Petraeus, commander of the coalition forces in Iraq, of “cooking the books” for the White House. When Petraeus presented the data to Congress in September, he faced similar scepticism.

Over the past two months, however, it has become increasingly apparent that the drop in violence is both real and significant. Official US military statistics have been corroborated by independent sources such as the Brookings Institute, Iraq Body Count and iCasualties.org. These groups measure different things — some focus on Iraqi civilians killed, others on coalition military casualties, and others on particular types of violence, such as sectarian killing. But they all show the same broad trend: a sharp and sustained drop in violence during the second half of 2007. The statistical evidence is backed up anecdotal evidence from Baghdad, where reporters speak of city cautiously returning to normalcy. Shops and markets have reopened, and a tentative nightlife has returned to the city. The latest positive indicator is the return of refugees: according to the Iraqi government, 46,000 refugees came back to Iraq during October alone.

This does not mean that Iraq’s problems are over. The political violence has been reduced from the staggering heights of 2006, but it remains at roughly the level of the 2004-2005 period, when Iraq was hardly a peaceful country. And any reduction in violence, no matter how steep, will mean little in the long run unless Iraq’s factional leaders can agree on a durable political settlement. Even so, compared to the horrific sectarian reprisals that gripped Baghdad a year ago, this is a remarkable reversal, and it is worthwhile trying to understand how it happened and what it means.

The first question is easier to answer. The November elections were a turning point: defeat at the polls seemed to shock Bush out of his complacency, forcing him to face up to the fact that his strategy in Iraq was failing. A raft of personnel changes were announced, including Robert Gates as the new Secretary of Defence, Douglas Lute as the president’s “war czar”, William Fallon as chief of CentCom, and Ryan Crocker as the new US ambassador to Iraq. Many of these new figures had been critical of the Iraq War from the start, and were deeply sceptical of the Wilsonian idealism that underpinned it. The neoconservatives were out; the realists were in.

Most crucial of all was the appointment of Petraeus, a scholarly military officer who nevertheless inspires enthusiastic support from troops under his command. Though public opinion had turned against the war and Congress was agitating for withdrawal, Petraeus convinced Bush that a “surge” of new troops, accompanied a radical change of strategy, offered the best chance of success. Petraeus adopted the classic counter-insurgency approach - largely forgotten by the US Army in the post-Vietnam era - of concentrating on securing the civilian population rather than fighting the insurgents. He gained a foothold in violent areas by flooding them with troops, provoking sharp battles in Baquba and Baghdad. Once those initial battles were over, he did not simply withdraw to fortified bases, as previous American commanders had done. Instead he deployed small groups of US troops in neighbourhoods, allowing them to mingle with the civilian population and prevent the insurgents from returning.

The new strategy put American troops at greater risk, which lead to sharp upturn in combat casualties during the first six months of the surge. But there were also early successes. In the province of Anbar, once the focal point of the Sunni insurgency, local Sunni tribes dramatically severed their ties with Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and formed an alliance with local American forces. AQI had alienated the tribes with their attempts to marry local women, enforce Islamic law, and inflict brutal punishments for smoking in the territories it controlled. Whatever the reasons for it, the alliance between the US military and the Sunnis proved to be very strong, and rapidly lead to the expulsion of AQI from the region. Anbar went from being the most dangerous province in Iraq to one of the most peaceful in a matter of months.

Strictly speaking, the success in Anbar can not be directly attributed to the surge. It stemmed from a variety of factors, not least of which was luck. However, Petraeus soon began looking for ways to copy the “Anbar model” in other parts of Iraq. In Baghdad, the US military enlisted the help of civilian volunteers to fight common enemies such as Al-Qaeda and the Mahdi Army, the militant Shiite group commanded by Moqtada al-Sadr. There are currently almost 70,000 of these volunteers countrywide. They volunteers are officially known as “Concerned Local Citizens,” and are given salaries and uniforms by the Americans. In reality, many of them are former insurgents, which makes the Shiite government nervous and detracts from the Manichean moral narrative preferred by Bush’s speechwriters. Keeping former insurgents on the payroll is, however, an effective way of taking them off the street while simultaneously ensuring that new militants do not rise up to take their place. This in turn has created an impetus for further positive developments. Most notably, the collapse of the Sunni insurgency has robbed the Mahdi Army of its popular legitimacy, forcing Moqtada al-Sadr to stand down his forces while he tries to reassert control over the movement.

This is the situation as it stands now. Through a combination of the surge, war-weariness among Iraq’s ethnic factions, and simple luck, something approximating a ceasefire has been achieved. The question is whether Iraqi leaders are capable of capitalising on the situation and arriving at a political settlement. To date, most of the “benchmarks” put in place by the Bush Administration to measure political progress are unfulfilled. The two most important political initiatives - an agreement for sharing oil revenues, and re-integrating former members of the Baath Party into Iraqi civil society - are stalled in the Iraqi legislature. And any security gain predicated solely upon the presence of US forces has a built-in expiry date. Sooner or later, political pressure for a US withdrawal will become inescapable, regardless of who succeeds Bush next November.

Despite these caveats, the fact remains that for the first time in years, there are genuine reasons to be positive about the future of Iraq. For the sake of Iraq’s civilian population, who have spent the last five years being brutalised by war, and decades before that under the harsh rule of Saddam Hussein, this is something to be welcomed.

Laurence Caromba

Laurence Caromba is a Research Assistant at the Centre for International Political Studies (CiPS), University of Pretoria

This article was first published by the Centre for International Political Studies (CiPS), University of Pretoria. Reproduced by permission.

HEBRON, West Bank - Palestinian police loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas fired automatic weapons and beat marchers with clubs during a funeral procession Wednesday for a man killed while protesting this week’s U.S.-hosted Mideast peace conference.

The chaos threatened to undermine Abbas’ standing in the West Bank, just as the international community stepped up its support for him in new peace talks with Israel and his struggle with Hamas militants.

Led by the Islamic militant Hamas, Palestinian hard-liners have been demonstrating all week, rejecting concessions to Israel and declaring that Abbas does not speak for them — outlining the severe challenge Abbas faces at home.

Medics said at least 26 people were wounded, one critically, in Wednesday’s West Bank violence, the second day of protests against the conference in Annapolis, Md., where Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert formally agreed to relaunch peace talks.

Olmert is also facing a challenge from Jewish settlers in the West Bank and their hard-line backers, who reject compromise with the Palestinians and are threatening to bring Olmert’s coalition down.

In Gaza, Palestinian officials said an Israeli airstrike on a Hamas base killed two militants. The Israeli military said the strike was a response to rocket and mortar fire from Gaza at Israel.

In Hebron, about 5,000 people participated in Wednesday’s funeral for Hisham Baradei, 36, who was shot and killed by Palestinian police on Tuesday.

The procession turned violent when marchers refused to keep to a route agreed in advance with police, who then opened fire over their heads. Protesters hurled rocks at police, who clubbed demonstrators.

Abbas’ government announced a ban on public demonstrations ahead of the Annapolis summit to keep Hamas under control. Abbas leads an emergency government based in the West Bank, formed after Hamas violently seized control of the Gaza Strip in June.

The Liberation Party, a small, unarmed Islamic group, organized Tuesday’s protests. But Hamas activists joined the funeral procession on Wednesday in Hebron, waving their green Islamic flags and hurling stones at police.

In Gaza, Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum condemned the police action as part of a “conspiracy in Annapolis.” Hamas itself has shown little tolerance for dissent in Gaza, killing eight unarmed protesters at a Nov. 12 rally organized by Abbas’ Fatah movement.

The protest ban and heavy-handed police tactics could undermine Abbas as he tries to rally support for peacemaking with Israel. Human rights groups have accused him of suppressing legitimate dissent.

Palestinian Cabinet minister Ashraf Ajrami, an Abbas ally, said Hamas provoked the violence, but that did not justify the use of lethal means by police.

“As long as security forces are not facing real danger, it should have been dispersed with the minimum amount of force, ” he said, adding that a committee of inquiry has been set up.

Diab al-Ali, commander of the Palestinian security forces involved in the clashes, said he did not have a policy of using extreme force, but his men were provoked by protesters seeking to make political capital out of confrontation.

“We are not butchers,” he told The Associated Press. “Somebody got a rock thrown at his head, and so a bullet flew.”

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said the imposition of law and order was a central part of any peace efforts. “They have started moving in the right direction,” he said.

U.S. and European security experts are training Abbas’ forces to help stabilize the Palestinian areas and lay the groundwork for a Palestinian state.

Colin Smith, head of the European Union mission training Palestinian police, said the Hebron action was regrettable.

“I think the way that the demonstrations were dealt with was not in a manner that I would generally find acceptable,” he told the AP. “They were just not equipped, resourced and trained to deal with it,” he said. “We need to move to a more acceptable, disciplined type of response. But like many things, that takes time.”

___

AP correspondents Steve Weizman in Jerusalem, Dalia Nammari in Ramallah and Ibrahim Barzak in Gaza City contributed to this report.

JERUSALEM - If Israelis and Palestinians have any hope of achieving their stated goal of signing a final peace treaty within a year, they may have to slice Jerusalem in half with a wall, come up with $85 billion for Palestinian refugees and figure out how to wrest control of the Gaza Strip from Hamas.

They’ll also have to agree on which territory Israel should give to a future Palestine in exchange for being allowed to keep major settlement blocs in the West Bank. And if they decide not to divide Jerusalem, they’ll have to determine how to share it while avoiding the potential security nightmare of an open border.

These are just some of the excruciating challenges faced by Israeli and Palestinian negotiators as they begin discussions Dec. 12 on how to end their century-old conflict — as agreed upon Tuesday at a U.S.-hosted Mideast peace summit in Annapolis, Md.

The Palestinians want to establish an independent state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem — areas that Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast war.

Of all the obstacles to a peace deal, none looms larger than Jerusalem — the city at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with its holy sites of such enormous importance to Muslims, Jews and Christians.

Past peace negotiations have made it clear that the city will have to serve as the capital of both Israel and a future Palestine.

But that raises more questions than it answers. How can you transfer east Jerusalem to Palestinian sovereignty without stripping its residents of Israeli social security benefits, for instance, or how can Israelis and Palestinians each have access to the city but not the other’s country?

“The Palestinian vision of Jerusalem is what they call an ‘open city,’ with access to all parts,” said Yitzhak Reiter, head of the Truman Institute think tank in Jerusalem. “From an Israeli perspective, this is a problem, because there would be no ‘hard borders’ between Palestine and Israel.”

Most Israelis and Palestinians do not want to divide the city, like the way it was before Israel captured its eastern sector in 1967. However, security concerns may require just that — unless the sides can come up with an alternative such as erecting checkpoints at all roads leading out of Jerusalem to keep Palestinian militants from entering Israeli cities.

But there’s an even thornier issue — how to share the emotionally charged Jerusalem holy site known to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary and to Jews as the Temple Mount. As the site contains a Muslim shrine built on the remains of a Jewish one, a solution will almost certainly require an international presence to administer jurisdiction.

Another major hurdle facing the negotiators is the issue of refugees.

The Palestinians want refugees and their descendants to be able to return to homes they left, or were forced out of, in the 1948 war that accompanied Israel’s creation. The demand is a deal breaker for Israelis, who sees it as a threat to their country’s Jewish character.

In the end, it seems the Palestinians will have little choice but to give up their dream of returning home. But that still leaves open the question of whether Israel will meet Palestinian demands that it acknowledge responsibility for the refugees’ plight.

A recent report by the Aix Group, a gathering of Israeli, Palestinian and international economists, estimated the total cost of resettling and compensating Palestinian refugees and their descendants — a necessary element of any peace deal — would be between $55 billion and $85 billion over 10 years. It’s far from clear where such an enormous sum would come from.

Israelis and Palestinians will also need to draw their future border. The formula worked out in previous negotiations called for a Palestinian state in the lines that existed before the 1967 war, with some modifications. Israel would be allowed to maintain most of its so-called settlement blocs — where most of its West Bank settlers reside — in exchange for giving the Palestinians territory inside Israel.

It won’t be an easy swap. The Palestinians will surely demand Israeli territory of equal size and value to the land they’re giving up for the settlements.

From the Israeli perspective, security is the biggest obstacle to peace — especially considering Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ poor track record in establishing law and order.

Israel may eventually sign a treaty. But it will not uproot tens of thousands of settlers and hand over territory to the Palestinians unless it can be assured that the evacuated land won’t be used as launching grounds for attacks — as happened after Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

Israel will also likely insist on continued control of the airspace above a Palestinian state, that such a state not have an army and that Israel maintain a military presence in strategically sensitive areas of the West Bank. The Palestinians will not easily accept any of these demands.

The two sides agreed at Annapolis to use the so-called road map peace plan as a guide for negotiations, with its key requirements that Israel stop expanding West Bank settlements and that the Palestinians rein in militants.

Israel insists that stopping violence from Gaza must be part of the Palestinians’ obligations. It’s not clear how Abbas could accomplish this, with Hamas in control of the coastal territory after having routed Abbas’ forces there in June.

Israel and the West are hoping to weaken Hamas’ hold on Gaza by propping up Abbas in the West Bank. They may also seek to co-opt Syria, a key backer of Hamas, in an effort to neutralize the Islamic militants. Syria was among the 16 Arab countries participating in this week’s summit.

Hamas already appears to be running into trouble in Gaza amid a devastating international boycott, and on Wednesday a senior Hamas official said his group might be willing to cooperate with Abbas.

Still, it will be extremely difficult for Abbas to make peace with Israel as long as he controls only part of his territory.

“He can negotiate. He cannot deliver,” said Israeli political analyst Yossi Alpher.

____

Steven Gutkin is the AP’s bureau chief for Israel and the Palestinian territories.

___

Associated Press writer Regan E. Doherty contributed to this report from Jerusalem.

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Dutch diplomat Robert Serry is expected to be named as next U.N. Middle East envoy, a post that has been vacant for three months, U.N. diplomats said on Wednesday.

Senior envoys from two countries, who asked not to be identified because no announcement has yet been made, said Serry, currently Dutch ambassador to Ireland, was in line for the job.

Serry, 57, headed the Middle East section at the Dutch foreign ministry from 1986-92. Following several other diplomatic posts he was NATO deputy assistant secretary general for crisis management and operations from 2001 to 2005, when he moved to Dublin.

The last U.N. Middle East envoy, Michael Williams of Britain, held the post for just three months before taking up a similar appointment with the British government.

Williams' predecessor, Alvaro De Soto of Peru, quit in May expressing frustration at what he called a pro-Israeli and pro-U.S. bias by the U.N. leadership.

The U.N. diplomats said they did not know when a formal announcement of the new envoy's appointment would be made.

TEHRAN, Iran - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday the U.S.-hosted Mideast peace conference was a “failure” and that Israel is doomed to “collapse.” He also suggested it was a mistake for his closest Arab ally, Syria, to participate.

The comments were the first time in months that the hard-line Ahmadinejad has used such strong anti-Israeli rhetoric, highlighting Tehran’s bitterness toward the Annapolis conference, which is widely seen as isolating Iran.

“It is impossible that the Zionist regime will survive. Collapse is in the nature of this regime because it has been created on aggression, lying, oppression and crime,” Ahmadinejad said after a Cabinet meeting, according to state-run television.

“Soon, even the most politically doltish individuals will understand that this conference was a failure from the beginning,” he said in comments reported by the official IRNA news agency.

In a reference to Arab countries attending the conference, he said, “We are disappointed that some individuals fell victim to the sinister Zionist regime. They are mistaken if they thought that this summit will bring any achievements for them.”

Iran has repeatedly condemned the conference, saying it would fail to bring any peace for the Palestinians and warning that it will discredit Arab countries who participated. Iran on Tuesday expressed surprise that Damascus participated in the gathering, although it has stopped short of directly criticizing its ally.

Ahmadinejad said the Palestinian “resistance” — such as Hamas, which is backed by Tehran — must have a say in any settlement.

“Many such meetings have been held but have failed,” he said. “If decision is made about Palestine, representatives of the elected Palestinian government and resistance should be there and the rights of the Palestinian people — self-determination, the right of voting and return of refugees — must be recognized,” he said.

Ahmadinejad has raised controversy in the West with past predictions of Israel’s eventual destruction, including a comment saying it should be “wiped off” or “disappear” from the map — and even critics at home said his inflammatory speeches were needlessly provoking the West against Iran.

Syria has defended its attendance, saying it is open to any serious attempt to reach a peace deal with Israel that brings the return of the Golan Heights. Syria’s deputy foreign minister, Faysal Mekdad, told the conference Tuesday his country was “sincere in our pursuit of a just and comprehensive peace.”

Mekdad said his country was ready to normalize relations with Israel, but only “after the full Israeli withdrawal from the Arab lands occupied in 1967,” according to a copy of the speech he gave to the closed-door session, obtained by The Associated Press.

The president told a conference in Annapolis, Md., on Tuesday that the two sides have agreed to meet regularly and make every effort to conclude an agreement by the end of 2008. While many question whether the time is right, the president said a peace process is needed now more than ever.

Bush has held Mideast peacemaking at arms’ length for most of his nearly seven years in office, arguing that conditions in Israel and the Palestinian territories were not right for a more energetic role. Arab allies, among others, have warned that the Palestinian plight underlies other conflicts and feeds grievances across the Middle East, and have urged the White House to do more.

“The time is right because the battle is underway for the future of the Middle East,” Bush said in a speech Tuesday. “We must not cede victory to the extremists — with their violent actions and contempt for human life. The extremists are seeking to impose a dark vision on the Palestinian people, a vision that feeds on hopelessness and despair to sow chaos in the holy land.”

The president’s comments seemed to be aimed at Iran, which was not part of the Annapolis meeting and not mentioned in the speeches. Washington accuses Tehran of bankrolling terrorist groups in the Middle East, including the Palestinian militant group Hamas, which now controls Gaza.

Analysts see the threat of a rising Iran as one of the driving forces for the conference, which brought officials from Arab states that do not recognize Israel together with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Olmert used his speech at Annapolis to address them.

“There isn’t a single Arab state in the north, in the east or in the south with which we do not seek peace,” he said in Hebrew through a translator. “There isn’t a single Muslim state with which we do not want to establish diplomatic relations. Anyone who wants to make peace with us, we say to them, from the bottom of our hearts (switching to Arabic) welcome.”

Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister said he did not come for theatrics and would not shake Olmert’s hand. Normalization — he argued — comes after peace. As for the conference, Saudi Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir said he heard some good promises — both from Olmert and from President Bush.

“We’ve heard positive things, but the proof is always going to be in the implementation,” he said. America had a great president once, Harry Truman, and his attitude was ’show me.’ We would like to see the promises turned into deeds.”

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas also came with a long list of issues he said need to be addressed if Palestinians are to see a “new dawn, without occupation and separation walls.”

“Mr. President, what we are facing today is not just the challenge of peace, but we are facing a test of our credibility as a whole,” he said through a translator. “It is a test that would leave its indelible impact on the future of the region and on the relationship among its peoples and the international powers that are entrusted in the peace, stability of our region on the other hand.”

Later, in an interview with The Associated Press, Bush spoke of the importance of giving beleaguered Palestinians something positive to look forward to - and he sketched a grim alternative.

Without a hopeful vision, he said, “it is conceivable that we could lose an entire generation - or a lot of a generation – to radicals and extremists. There has to be something more positive. And that is on the horizon today.”

Negotiating teams will hold their first session in the region in just two weeks, on Dec. 12, and Olmert and Abbas plan to continue one-on-one discussions they began earlier this year. In addition, many of the same nations and organizations attending Tuesday’s conference will gather again on Dec. 17 in Paris to raise money for the perpetually cash-strapped Palestinians.

With additional reporting from The Associated Press

During a Rose Garden ceremony, Bush praised Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for agreeing to work toward a peace settlement by the end of 2008.

“One thing I have assured both gentlemen is that the United States will be actively engaged in the process,” Bush said. “We will use our power to help you as you come up with the necessary decisions to lay out a Palestinian state that will live side by side in peace with Israel.”

“Yesterday was an important day, and it was a hopeful beginning,” Bush said. “No matter how important yesterday was, it’s not nearly as important as tomorrow and the days beyond. I appreciate the commitment of these leaders, working hard to achieve peace. I wouldn’t be standing here if I didn’t believe that peace was possible, and they wouldn’t be here either if they didn’t think peace was possible.”

After meeting their own low expectations for the Annapolis, Md., conference, Bush administration officials trumpeted their success.

“What has been remarkable about this process is that they are now ready to go,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told ABC during a round of TV interviews Wednesday morning. Rice also praised the unprecedented support for the peace process from Arab states.

“It’s going to be hard, but you had support in that room that you had not had from Arab states in the past,” Rice said on NBC.

After inaugurating the negotiations at the White House, the two sides have agreed to continue with a meeting in the region on Dec. 12, Rice said Tuesday.

Bush, along with Rice, had earlier salvaged a joint statement between the Israelis and Palestinians, who had remained far apart on the details until the last minute.

But with prodding from the American side, Olmert and Abbas — troubled leaders with fragile mandates for peace — told international backers and skeptical Arab neighbors that they are ready for hard bargaining toward an independent Palestinian state in the 14 months that Bush has left in office.

“This is the beginning of the process, not the end of it,” Bush said Tuesday after reading from the just-completed text of the statement that took weeks to negotiate and yet sets only the vaguest terms for the talks to come.

“I pledge to devote my effort during my time as president to do all I can to help you achieve this ambitious goal,” Bush told Abbas and Olmert as the three stood together in the U.S. Naval Academy’s majestic Memorial Hall in Annapolis.

“I give you my personal commitment to support your work with the resources and resolve of the American government.”

The two Mideast leaders were circumspect but optimistic.

“I had many good reasons not to come here,” Olmert told diplomats, including those from Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and Syria, that do not recognize Israel. “Memory of failures in the near and distant past weighs heavy upon us.”

Abbas, meanwhile, recited a familiar list of Palestinian demands, including calls for Israel to end the expansion of Jewish settlements on land that could be part of an eventual state called Palestine, and to release some of the thousands of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.

“Neither we nor you must beg for peace from the other,” Abbas said. “It is a joint interest for us and you. Peace and freedom is a right for us, just as peace and security is a right for you and us.”

In another development, a former NATO commander is expected to accept a role as adviser to Rice on security issues related to the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, officials close to the discussions said Wednesday. Rice was expected to announce later in the day that the advisory post would be taken by retired Marine Corps Gen. James Jones, who was the alliance’s top commander in Europe. The officials spoke on condition of anonymnity because there has been no official announcement.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the administration would announce a new position that involves monitoring the development of Palestinian security services. One focus would be how those forces interact with neighboring security services, including Israeli authorities. McCormack did not say who would fill the position.

The United States has pledged to hold both sides to account if they do not carry out obligations.

Bush has held Mideast peacemaking at arms’ length for most of his nearly seven years in office, arguing that conditions in Israel and the Palestinian territories were not right for a more energetic role. Arab allies, among others, have warned that the Palestinian plight underlies other conflicts and feeds grievances across the Middle East, and have urged the White House to do more.

Bush seemed to answer the criticism Tuesday, giving detailed reasons why the time is now. He said Israeli and Palestinian leaders are ready to make peace, that there is a wider and unifying fight against extremism fed by the Palestinian conflict and that he world understands the urgency of acting now.

Later, in an interview with The Associated Press, Bush spoke of the importance of giving beleaguered Palestinians something positive to look forward to — and he sketched a grim alternative.

Without a hopeful vision, he said, “it is conceivable that we could lose an entire generation — or a lot of a generation — to radicals and extremists. There has to be something more positive. And that is on the horizon today.”

Negotiating teams will hold their first session in the region in just two weeks, on Dec. 12, and Olmert and Abbas plan to continue the one-on-one discussions they began earlier this year.

From NPR reports and The Associated Press