Several Arab countries included on the Pew Center’s survey can certainly be counted on by the Palestinians to be on their side in future negotiations with Israel. At least three-fourths of the publics in Egypt (86 percent), Jordan (81 percent), and Lebanon (74 percent) named Israel among the countries posing the greatest threat to their country in the future. These Arab publics also shared a fairly widespread perception of Iran as a potential future threat; it was named by 27 percent in Egypt, 46 percent in Jordan, and 42 percent in Lebanon, as well as by 52 percent of the public in Kuwait.

On the positive side, nearly half of the Arab publics surveyed in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Kuwait looked upon Saudi Arabia as one of their most dependable allies—by far the best ratings received by any country from the Arab publics.

As a peace broker, the United States faces the problem that it is widely seen as too partial to Israel. The U.S. public was one of the few in the Pew survey in which a plurality (34 percent) rated “U.S. policies in the Middle East” as “fair” (compared to 27 percent who said U.S. policies “favor Israel too much” and 8 percent who believed they “favor the Palestinians too much.” The predominant response of most of the thirty-seven publics asked this question was that U.S. policies “favor Israel too much,” reaching majority levels in some countries in Western Europe (France and Germany) and Asia (Indonesia and Malaysia). Perception of U.S partiality to Israel reached 90 percent among Palestinians and was close to that level in every other Arab public surveyed. Even in Israel, a plurality viewed U.S. policies in the Middle East as “favoring Israel too much” (42 percent), compared to 37 percent of Israelis who saw U.S. policies as “fair” between the two sides, and 13 percent as “favoring the Palestinians too much.”

In sum, surveys of Israelis and Palestinians have found majorities of both publics approve the Middle East peace process and the two-state formula for a peace settlement. Far fewer, however, have supported territorial and other compromises on the core issues of settlements, refugees, Jerusalem, and final borders that will be required to reach a final settlement. Agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians may be easier to reach in the near term on the issues of an enforceable ceasefire in return for the removal of transport barriers and revitalization of the Palestinian economy. An initial accord that provided greater freedom of movement to the Palestinians and greater freedom from attack to the Israelis might furnish momentum for progress on other issues in future negotiations. The upcoming conference can thus be viewed as the start of a political process that is intended to include agreements on all core issues and a final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas are both in politically weak positions. They need each other and the backing of their respective major partners in order to make concessions and reach agreement on refugees, settlements, and other tough issues. President Abbas and Fatah’s rivalry with Hamas in the Palestinian territories and the perception that Iran is exploiting the Arab-Israeli conflict to expand its influence in the region have added a new sense of urgency in Israel and some Arab countries. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process can be threatened and possibly derailed by a number of factors, including obstructions by Hamas, Syria, and Iran, as well as by the legacy of deep mutual distrust that exists between Israelis and Palestinians.

But the stakes now are very high: A resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will dampen Iran’s bid to gain regional hegemony, and might set into motion events leading to a nonmilitary resolution of Iran’s program to acquire a nuclear weapons capability.

Alvin Richman writes and consults on public attitudes toward foreign affairs. He served for thirty-six years analyzing American and foreign public opinion in the Office of Research at the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Information Agency.