The Jewish New Year begins tomorrow which is coincidentally also the first day of Ramadan.
That is a favorable omen for the New Year (the Jewish and Islamic holy days rarely coincide) but it is also one of the very few for those of us who care deeply about Israel and who have been horrified by events of the past year.
The most troubling development over the last 12 months is that the question of Israel's long-term survival is again on the table as a result of both the Lebanon war and the likelihood that Iran will soon be in possession of nuclear weapons.
This past summer missiles from a neighboring state landed on Israeli cities and towns for the first time since 1948. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threats to destroy Israel seem absolutely sincere (it seems perverse to use that word in this context). He doesn't seem to be posturing and, if he gets the bomb, Israel will find itself in the position the United States was in during the Cold War with its security subject to the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD).
And then there is Hamas which continues to resist the idea of recognizing Israel despite the fact that recognition - and an unconditional end to violence - would almost surely get the desperately needed Western aid flowing into Gaza and the West Bank again.
Nevertheless, I do not share the pessimism of those who see only more darkness at the end of the tunnel. Not that there aren't plenty of reasons for a dark view. The last six years (since the Oslo collapse) have seen both Palestinians and Israelis miss opportunity after opportunity. And the United States, which should be pushing for diplomatic movement, has been AWOL.
But the reason I am not pessimistic is that it appears that some kind of breakthrough is imminent. The reasons are not that hard to discern.
The Palestinians are desperate. The West Bank and Gaza have slipped into sub-Saharan Africa-like poverty. In the September 14 New York Times, Steve Erlanger cites the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development which just warned that the Palestinian "economy could shrink next year to the level of 15 years ago, and unemployment could rise to over 50 percent. The World Bank predicts the Palestinian gross domestic product to decline by 27 percent this year."
If the goal of the economic boycott was to bring the Palestinian economy to its knees, it is time to say "mission accomplished." Hamas has little choice but to moderate its position to meet the demands of the Europeans and the Americans which is why a unity government - one that authorizes President Abbas to negotiate an end to violence with Israel - is likely to happen, sooner or later. That is if the urgency of relieving the suffering of its own people trumps the religious impulse to fight Israel to the death.
The Lebanon war, terrible as it was, succeeded in reducing the Hezbollah threat. It is just possible that Iran has lost its foothold on Israel's border, perhaps for good.
Most Israelis understand that the status quo does not work. And that is why Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is likely to start negotiating with President Abbas, especially if Abbas can negotiate on behalf of a unity government.
What alternative is there? Standing still means a resumption of the intifada, which neither side wants but can probably not avoid without diplomatic movement. Even the Israeli right seems to understand that.
Writing in the Forward this week, reporter Ori Nir cites Uzi Arad, who was a top aide to former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and is still close to him, as saying that Israelis need to consider a "more flexible" policy toward the Palestinians, if only to help advance international efforts to confront the Iranian nuclear threat.
A third reason we can expect a breakthrough is Iran.
Reports from Washington, Europe and Jerusalem indicate that President Bush is beginning to view the seemingly endless Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an obstacle to his primary Middle East goal right now -- preventing Iran from going nuclear.
The Europeans have made clear that they will resist US demands for sanctions unless America starts showing leadership on the Israeli-Palestinian front. And, according to administration officials, Washington is getting the message.
Speaking at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Philip Zelikow, Counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, indicated that the administration now views a solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict as central to achieving all its Middle Eastern goals - from Iraq, to Lebanon, to Iran, to the War on Terror.
Zelikow said: "The significance of the Arab-Israeli dispute across these problems is, I think, obvious ....Think about the coalition you need to amass in order to combat those threats. Who are the key members of that coalition? You can imagine the United States, key European allies, the state of Israel and the Arab moderates--Arabs who seek a peaceful future."
He then said that the ingredient that "would bind that coalition and help keep them together is a sense that the Arab-Israeli issues are being addressed, and that they see a common determination to sustain an active policy that tries to deal with the problems of Israel and the Palestinians."
This is something new: the realization by Washington that movement on the Israeli-Palestinian issue is not only right, it is essential if the United States is to achieve progress anywhere in the region.