Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas held talks last Thursday with U.S. President George W. Bush in Washington that paled against the background of other news in the Middle East, and would not have deserved any mention at all had they not been connected to a new intrigue brewing in the U.S. corridors of power.

While Bush and Abbas were meeting, the press broke the news of Hamas's readiness to accept an Egyptian-proposed plan of reconciliation with Israel.

It should be said that Israel hastened to renounce the plan, accusing the Islamists of playing for time.

Nevertheless, it is important that Hamas is trying to find a way out of an impasse, into which it drove itself a year ago by seizing power in the Gaza Strip, and severing all relations with Abbas.

However, the United States, Israel, and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) are interested in Hamas's unconditional surrender, rather then softening its position, and it is difficult to imagine how this may happen.

It is also hard to imagine how Bush's dream of Israelis and Palestinians reaching peace before the end of his term will come true if the Hamas situation is not resolved.

But now Bush has been given another chance to win the laurels of a Middle East peacemaker in a different direction; although it is very dubious that he will take it.

Damascus has announced sensational news that Israel is ready to make peace with Syria on the basis of international agreements, and offering, in particular, to return the Golan Heights.

Syrian leaders maintain that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert conveyed these words to Syrian President Bashar Assad via Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The Israeli prime minister's office neither confirms, nor denies these reports, saying that Olmert said everything he wanted in a recent interview.

He gave this interview to the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot in mid-April in which he said Syrians know perfectly well what he wants from them, and that he knows perfectly well what they want of him, adding that there exists an opportunity for the start of a process, which will lead to peace between Syria and Israel.

Olmert did not confirm that indirect talks were going on with Damascus. But this was not necessary. The world community has long known that these talks have been going on for almost two years, no matter how much Israelis would like to keep them secret, as distinct from Syria, which has repeatedly admitted this fact.

Damascus is provoking Israel to be open in a bid to step up the negotiating process. Heated debates about the Golan Heights are inevitable in Israeli society. And for this reason Syrians want to learn about the alignment of forces as soon as possible, and understand whether a peace treaty is possible in the near future, and on what terms. This is better than striking an agreement with Olmert and having it invalidated by public opinion.

But Washington's reaction is even more important for Damascus. Under Bush, Syria has become one of the favorite targets of U.S. criticism.

The United States is accusing Syria for the political crisis in Lebanon, militant raids on Iraqi territory, supporting Palestinian extremists, and particularly, for its alliance with Iran.

But while Abbas was meeting with Bush, Washington accused Syria of secretly building a nuclear reactor for military purposes.

On Thursday, representatives of U.S. secret services showed Congress documents, videos and photos allegedly depicting a nuclear reactor in Syria that Israel destroyed in September 2007. It was allegedly built with North Korea's technical assistance.

Washington has not concealed that the hearings in Congress were largely aimed at exerting pressure on North Korea.

By doing so Washington has newly accused the Far Eastern country of spreading nuclear technologies, just when the Korean "nuclear crisis" at the six-lateral talks in Beijing seemed to have been almost resolved.

The right-wing Republicans did not like the idea of compromise, so now Pyongyang is being told to admit a transfer of technology to Syria.

It is obvious that Washington will enhance its pressure on Damascus after the hearings.

In response, Syria hastened to reveal the gist of its talks with Israel, turning the prospect of a peace settlement into a shield against new U.S. attacks.

Washington now faces a choice: is it better to continue regarding Syria as its enemy, or should it achieve progress at least on one Mideast peace process track? The latter option will allow it to take Syria out of the orbit of Iran's influence, and deal a blow at the positions of extremists.

It is important to note that it was in Tehran that Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem confirmed Damascus's readiness to conclude peace with Israel if the two sides returned to the border that existed before June 4, 1967. He said that the negotiating process should not damage the peace process in Palestine, or reinforce the blockade of the Gaza Strip.

The Syrian problem is not likely to be withdrawn from the Middle East dilemma, though, unless Washington is ready to revise its policy in the region. But this chance is slim under the current administration.

All Abbas could do in the U.S. was to helplessly watch the developments.

Washington made it clear that it is somewhat premature to discuss a new Middle East conference in Moscow or anywhere else.

Russia has suggested a conference on all aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict, including Syria's role. It makes sense to consider the Russian idea, and the prospects of a breakthrough in the peace process before the expiry of Bush's term.

--

Maria Appakova is a RIA Novosti political commentator. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.