President Bush hosted a successful meeting Tuesday at Annapolis to relaunch the Middle East negotiating process. Everyone hopes it might lead to agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians on two states, living side by side, in peace.

The meeting appeared to go well in that a process was agreed upon that envisages talks on the issues beginning a short two weeks from now. A target date for completion was set at the end of next year, which coincides with the end of the Bush administration. Prospects for success were enhanced by the presence of representatives of some 49 countries, including frequent spoiler Syria and Arab godfather Saudi Arabia, represented by Prince Saud al-Faisal, who is foreign minister and a member of the Saudi royal family.

Important regional players were absent, including Iran. The Bush administration's desire to mobilize Arab and other opposition to Iran was one of its motivations in organizing the conference, after seven years of immobility in the face of the 60-year-old festering conflict. The government in Iraq chose not to send a representative. Most significantly, Hamas, the party that won the January 2006 elections in the Palestinian territories and whose forces defeated those of Fatah, the party headed by President Mahmoud Abbas, on the battlefield in June, was not invited.

In spite of Mr. Bush's having achieved the big handshake between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Mr. Abbas, the questions looming before the Annapolis meeting remain to be resolved afterward if movement toward peace is to occur.

1. Is Mr. Olmert -- with weak political support in Israel, under investigation for corruption and in ill health -- able to negotiate and deliver on behalf of his country?

2. Is Mr. Abbas -- defeated both at the polls and in battle and reviled Tuesday in large demonstrations in Gaza and the West Bank even as he, in principle, represented the Palestinians at Annapolis -- able to negotiate and deliver on behalf of his people?

3. Is Mr. Bush, after seven years of disassociation from the issue, now prepared to devote time, energy and his remaining political steam to wrestling with these difficult issues and parties to bring home an agreement during his final year in office?

A negative view says that a "no" to any of these three questions is a show-stopper. President Bill Clinton applied his considerable energies to the problem throughout his two terms, failing finally only in his last year in office. The issues themselves are vicious and sensitive, including the Israeli settlers, determination of borders, the fate of Jerusalem and the question of Palestinian returns to properties in Israel.

A more positive view says that even the fact that the parties were willing to come to Annapolis at Mr. Bush's behest after he had ducked the issue for so long is tribute to just how much an American president can achieve if he wants. The Syrians and Saudis notably did not want to come.

Anyone who has watched years of effort to try to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict end up on the trash heap of history has to be pessimistic. At the same time, there is no denying that such a settlement is not only an absolute pre-condition to Middle East peace, but also a critical remedy to the widening gap between the West and Muslims in the world.

Americans can only hope that the overriding desirability of the goal will help the parties get past the formidable barriers that stand in the way. Caution -- even pessimism -- are dictated by history and circumstances, but so is the eternal American belief that obstacles can be overcome by perseverance and hard work.