(Agencies)
Updated: 2007-11-22 15:16

WASHINGTON -- US President George W. Bush's twilight effort to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians faces far more challenges than his predecessor Bill Clinton's failed attempt in 2000.

In his waning months in office, Bush is trying to resolve the intractable conflict when the Palestinians are divided, Israel's prime minister is unpopular and the US president's own credibility has been eroded by the Iraq war.

Diplomats, former negotiators and regional analysts said they welcomed Bush's decision to host a conference on Tuesday in Annapolis, Maryland, that he hopes will trigger formal negotiations on creating a Palestinian state.

But given the realities of weak leaders on all sides, none saw much chance of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal before the Republican president leaves office in January 2009.

"When Clinton tried ... both sides actually felt they could do it and both sides felt the other side could do it," said an Arab diplomat. "Now, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians believe that the other side wants to do it or can do it."

The Palestinian leadership, and territory, is split between President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah movement, which rules the West Bank, and the Islamist Hamas faction, which forcibly took control of the Gaza Strip from Fatah in July.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert presides over a delicate and fragmented coalition and his personal popularity plunged following Israel's 2006 war with Hezbollah in Lebanon, undercutting his ability to pursue peace.

At the Camp David summit that Clinton hosted in July 2000, the Palestinians were led by Yasser Arafat, the icon of the Palestinian struggle, and the Israelis by Ehud Barak, a former general elected on a peace platform.

'EXTREMELY UNPOPULAR'

"Arafat had a legitimacy and an ability to sell things to his people that no Palestinian leader today has," said Rob Malley, a Clinton aide who took part in the 2000 peace talks and is now at the International Crisis Group think tank.

"On the Israeli side, you have a leadership that is extremely unpopular and that may not have the capacity to make the ... concessions that are going to be required," he added.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledged that both leaders are widely viewed as politically weak, but said Abbas was committed to a negotiated solution and Olmert may benefit from wider Arab support for the peace effort.

Analysts said Bush's approach may have two advantages over Clinton's: he is starting his peace push roughly eight months earlier than Clinton convened the Camp David summit and he may have secured greater backing from Arab states.

Bush administration officials have privately faulted Clinton for not including major Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Syria, which have no diplomatic relations with Israel but whose support could make it easier for Abbas to compromise.

Neither Syria nor Saudi Arabia has said whether they will come to Annapolis.

Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at Washington's conservative American Enterprise Institute think tank, suggested that their attendance might not mean much in the end.

"I have never believed that Arab buy-in is the key to peace," Pletka said. "Every single other would-be peace maker has desperately attempted to bring the Arabs on board. ... But bringing them on board and getting them to drink cocktails at the party does not mean getting them to deliver."

While critics accuse Bush of having neglected the conflict, he will take center stage when he welcomes Olmert and Abbas to the White House for separate meetings on Monday and then delivers the main speech at Annapolis on Tuesday.

Asked if it would be an irony for Bush's more hands-off approach to succeed where Clinton's deeply personal effort failed, Malley said: "It would be a welcome irony and we could all hope for it, but I think it will be extremely difficult for them to get a final status agreement by the end of the term."