Expectations are justifiably low for this summit

How many times have you attended an event - a work function, a trip to see the in-laws - not because you wanted to, but because you had to?

That's how I imagine the parties invited to the U.S.-sponsored Mideast "peace summit" in Annapolis, Md., later this month must feel. They don't exactly want to go, but if you get an invitation from U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, there isn't much room to wiggle out of it. Secretary Rice called the Annapolis summit "the most serious effort to end this conflict in many, many years." She expects you not only show up, but get something accomplished. "We have better things to do than invite people to Annapolis for a photo op," she said.

Still, there has been a distinct lack of fanfare surrounding the conference that brings together Israeli and Palestinian Fatah party leaders (Hamas was not sent an invite). Not only are expectations low, it's not even clear at this late date when exactly the summit will take place and who will come.

Pre-summit media analysis has focused less on hopes for a breakthrough than on the low likelihood for significant progress. Recent headlines say it all: "Israel plays down Mideast conference," "Palestinians demand timeline for peace accord" and "Skepticism, anger on both sides of Mideast conflict."

Still, it must be noted that Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams have been meeting consistently, trying to create a working paper to use as a starting point in Annapolis. This effort would theoretically allow for more serious and focused negotiations because the so-called "core issues" - Jerusalem's status, final borders and refugee concerns - would be put on the table.

The Palestinians want a favorable agreement not only on the core issues, but a specific timetable for Palestinian statehood to be reached. Many Israelis, while supporting a Palestinian state, remain unimpressed with Mahmoud Abbas' ability to deliver. (Exhibit No. 1 being Fatah's collapse in Gaza, where the Islamic fundamentalist group Hamas now reigns supreme.) Yet, most Israelis' position could be summed up by one Israeli who told Reuters, "They should have their own country - as long as it's not ours."

Israel and the United States want to bolster Abbas among Palestinians as the only leader who can get statehood. Hamas, by contrast, would only bring more misery upon the people. To help Abbas, President Bush recently proposed a six-fold increase in aid to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

A big question remains who will attend the summit. Other than Israel and the Palestinians, it's uncertain what role Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan will play. Syria, too, may be invited but is unlikely to go. Not surprisingly, Iran and Hamas called on Muslim countries to boycott the conference because Israel shouldn't exist in the first place.

Can the peace parley succeed? Let's hope so, because a failure will only serve to strengthen the radical elements. As veteran Mideast peace negotiator Dennis Ross warned recently, "If all (the summit) creates are generalities and abstractions without some tangible steps and credible follow-on mechanisms, it will be a step back."

And that is not a direction we want to be heading.