In recent weeks there have been a number of indications that a rapprochement between Syria and Israel might still be possible. At a press conference held in Washington, D.C., Syrian Ambassador Imad Mustapha said that he believed the time was right for peace talks between his country and Israel. While the unexpected overtures from Damascus have been given somewhat of a frosty reception in Israel, there is a growing belief in the Jewish state that peace with Syria will pay dividends.

Haaretz, one of Israel's leading daily newspapers wrote in a recent editorial titled, "Don't be afraid of peace with Syria," that "the time is ripe for negotiations with Syria, especially since U.S. President George W. Bush's reign is drawing to a close, and among his potential successors, whether Democrat or Republican, there is a willingness to negotiate with Bashar Assad instead of boycotting him."

Indeed, the Bush administration has 258 days left during which time they can still muddle the Middle East some more, but the principal actors in the region are starting to look beyond the present U.S. leadership. Although few Middle Eastern leaders will admit it openly, in private even staunch U.S. allies such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are highly critical of the way Bush and his administration has handled the Middle East dossier.

Critics of the administration's Middle East policies have a long list of grievances regarding what many analysts say in fact is a lack of policy. They point to the multiple errors committed by this administration, starting with the war in Iraq, which many observers believe was unnecessary. If that is not enough, there is the after-war's lack of adequate planning on the part of the Pentagon and the blunt refusal of the administration to heed the advice of anyone except the very tight-knit inner circle that is close to Vice President Dick Cheney's office.

That same inner group advocates ignoring Damascus rather than pushing Syria toward a peaceful settlement which, as anyone who knows anything about the Middle East will tell you, is the key to a greater settlement of the region's problems.

"John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama all see a peace agreement between Israel and Syria as a recipe for relieving tension in the region," the Haaretz editorial goes on to say.

The Israeli newspaper astutely points out that "removing Syria from the axis of evil might shuffle the Middle Eastern deck once again, breaking alliances and creating new interests." By this it may mean that a peace agreement between Syria and Israel would remove Syria from its alliance with Iran.

But the Bush administration was adamant that it would not deal with what it regards as terrorism-sponsoring states, a category described by Patrick Clawson of The Washington Near East Institute, as "a set of countries the U.S. government does not like."

And quite obviously the U.S. government does not like Syria. And if Washington does not like Damascus, it is also asking its friends and allies to follow suit.

For the moment Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is playing along with the request of the United States.

Additionally, Olmert may not be the right man to talk peace with Syria. As the weakest and the most unpopular prime minister in the 60 years since the creation of the State of Israel, Olmert is also burdened by allegations of wrongdoing and is currently under police investigation.

There are indications that discreet negotiations have been taking place, sometimes called Track Two negotiations, involving the Turkish prime minister. While all these negotiations are certainly promising and must be encouraged to continue, the reality is that without the full backing of the United States it remains doubtful that any major breakthrough will be possible. Quoting the Haaretz editorial one last time, "the cost of peace with Syria has been known for years, and there is no reason to be alarmed by it."

If the Israelis are warming up to the concept of peace with Syria, and if Syria is opening up to the reality that peace with Israel is the only way out of the current morass, why can't the U.S. government accept the inevitable? Without Washington's active participation, peace in the Middle East will only take that much longer.