Make no mistake; Annapolis 2007 will go down in history as a mega Middle East parley, with unprecedented participation of representatives from 44 nations, seeking to revive a dormant road map for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and aiming to bring about a two-state outcome by the end of the Bush administration in 2008. Most importantly, however, Annapolis 2007 did not provide a launching pad or a jump start for a global strategic breakthrough of a more comprehensive regional peace process.

Thus, the almost century-old zero-sum situation requires multiple Annapolis gatherings over the next 100 years before a final peaceful solution to all the outstanding issues related to security concerns is assured.

More specifically, two reasons account for this inevitable probability. First, the good news: Annapolis is not a place but a concept. It is a philosophy of international diplomatic action which assumes that all nations are responsible for making joint efforts to create some sort of a reasonable framework for peace with justice in the Middle East.

As a stepping stone toward this ultimate goal, encouraging the "third phase" in the Oslo Peace process of 1993 that was never implemented, Annapolis is a spectacular initiative that signals a beginning of intensive negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians, to begin on Dec. 12 with a promise that both sides will "make every effort" to strike a deal within a year.

On the other hand, it is highly doubtful that the parties can reach a final agreement on the core issues such as borders, settlements, the fate of Palestinian refugees and most critically, the future status of Jerusalem, within such a short period of time.

What makes matters complicated is the reality in the Palestinian territories. That is, Gaza is controlled by Hamas, which is dedicated to the elimination of Israel and therefore violently opposes the Annapolis process. Moreover, Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, is not fully in control of the West Bank. Ironically, the Israeli Defense Force's continuous preemptive counter-terrorism raids in this area have provided Abbas with a security shield against Hamas' plans to paralyze the normal functioning of the Palestinian Authority.

It is premature, therefore, to expect a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians without first resolving the intra-Palestinian conflict, specifically as to who speaks for and is accountable to the Palestinian people.

A second reason for anticipating numerous other Annapolis diplomatic events relates to the broader context of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Syria's issue of Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights for the past 40 years is a case in point.

Indeed, a tentative second Middle East gathering is being planned in Moscow in early 2008, with direct talks between Israel and Syria. Russia's deputy foreign minister Alexander Sultanov has been working on a plan which would provide Syria sovereignty over the Golan but also enable Israel to hold a long-term lease of the area. It is unlikely, however, that the Israeli-Syrian peace track is feasible in parallel with the Israeli-Palestinian talks.

What complicates these diplomatic efforts are the unresolved, broader strategic concerns in the Middle East, including the emerging military might of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the war in Iraq, Iran's nuclear ambitions, and the growing influence of al-Qaida in the region.

In sum, the foregoing security challenges in the region will be inherited by successive U.S. administrations for the remainder of the 21st century. It is hoped, however, that all parties concerned would heed the wise statecraft strategy outlined by Kalif Mouawia, founder of the Omayah Dynasty in 660 A.D.:

"I never use my sword where the stick suffices, nor my stick where the tongue is enough; and if it is only the thread that binds me with my opponents it will never be broken; if they pull it, I let it; and if they relax it, I straighten it."

--

Yonah Alexander is a contributing editor to Middle East Times. His latest book is "The New Iranian Leadership: Ahmadinejad, Terrorism, Nuclear Ambition, and the Middle East." (Praeger Publishers)