Direct negotiations between Israel and Palestine started as scheduled on September 2 in Washington. Pessimists expect the talks to end in immediate failure while it would be extremely optimistic to expect short-term success. The reality is likely to be a long process marked by frustration and conflict, with a less than clear-cut outcome.

Israel's motives for participation are various. When he was Prime Minister in the late 1990s, Benjamin Netanyahu advocated "security for peace" in direct opposition to the mainstream view of the international community that Israel must trade "land for peace". Though many things have changed over the last ten years, Netanyahu has scarcely modified his hawkish views. He will demand more concessions from the Palestinians than his predecessors did. But demanding a high price for peace does not mean a complete rejection of peace. As a politician, Benjamin Netanyahu has no reason to continue supporting the status quo of neither peace nor war.

Besides, participation in negotiations, even as an empty gesture, can serve Israel's goal of advancing its national security. Israel can trade its participation in the peace process in exchange for more American pressure on Iran. Israel regards Iran's nuclear program as the primary threat to its national security. With its small and narrow territory, Israel is probably more vulnerable to nuclear threats than any other state in the world.

For the Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas the peace process is the only possible road to Palestinian nationhood. As a representative of the moderates in Palestine and the Middle East at large, the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of Abbas has long advocated peaceful negotiations as the way to secure the national interests of the Palestinians. But for various reasons, in particular the sharp turn to the right in Israeli politics, the Palestinian Authority is disillusioned about the prospects for peace. Abbas had resisted returning to the table without a clear statement from Israeli side on freezing settlement building. But achieving Palestinian nationhood via negotiation is the only road to generating legitimacy for the PA and Abbas.

America's investment in the negotiations is part of an effort to renew its leadership in the Islamic world. The post-9/11 war on terror seriously undermined the soft power and the image of the U.S. in the Islamic world. Hence, Barack Obama from the outset made reconciliation a priority. In Turkey, he declared that the U.S. "is not and never will be at war with Islam". In a speech delivered at Cairo University, Obama went even further, announcing that he would personally pursue a two-state solution with all the patience and dedication necessary to achieve a result.

The status of Jerusalem, border issues, the problem of Palestinian refugees, and Israeli settlements are the four toughest nuts of the peace process. Though history may once again prove that expecting a solution to all the problems is na?ve, a partial solution is possible, considering that the U.S. has never been more enthusiastic for the peace process. A report published by the Baker Institute argues that the territorial issue is the most easily addressed.

History is full of stories that prove it is easy to start negotiations but difficult to conclude them. Even before Netanyahu started his Washington trip, his foreign minister Avigdor Liberman, the leader of one of Israel's rightist factions said that settlement building should resume as soon as the current freeze expires on September 26. The spiritual leader of Shas, another extreme rightist party, spoke even more harshly, saying that Palestinians should "perish". It is almost inevitable that if not well managed, any substantial negotiations will lead to a split in the Israeli cabinet.

The Palestinian Authority is facing similar domestic pressures. Speaking at a Ramadan fast-breaking meal in the Gaza town of Khan Younis, a Hamas leader said that prisoners, the wounded and the families of martyrs will never agree to surrender Palestine or Jerusalem after all the years of sacrifice and struggle. Hamas also claimed responsibility for a shooting that resulted in the death of four Israeli citizens. Analysts believe that the shooting was a warning that there could be no peace process in the absence of Hamas. Indeed, the Hamas problem is one the peace process cannot avoid. If forces supported by the Iranians not included, no negotiations can proceed smoothly.

Negotiations are seen by the international community as the road to peace. But history often tells a paradoxical story, that negotiations are more frequently followed by violence. That is what happened after the failure of the Camp David talks ten years ago between Ehud Barack and Yassir Arafat. So what about this latest round of talks? Will it lead to peace or war? The answer depends on how the parties manage the process.

Dr. Jin Liangxiang is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit: http://www.h5a3.com/opinion/node_7075400.htm