Why Fatah is Not the Answer; Engaging the Palestinians means engaging Hamas; Fatah has lost its credibility.

Byline: Jeremy Greenstock (Greenstock is director of the Ditchley Foundation and a former British ambassador to the United Nations.)

Tony Blair's recent appointment as representative of the Middle East Quartet (made up of the United States, the EU, the United Nations and Russia) has many wondering whether the stalemate between Israel and Palestine can really be broken. Is the Middle East doomed to perpetual instability? Many of the problems seem irresolvable, beyond the capacity of governments or international diplomats to fix. Effort after effort has turned to dust. Is there anything left to talk about?

The answer is yes: all three of the region's main flash points--Iraq, Iran and the Arab-Israeli conflict--would benefit from bringing the adversaries to the table. Let's start with Iraq. Washington's performance there has exacerbated the problems, and Iraq faces many more years of sectarian violence before it has a chance of stability. That said, the United States and the United Kingdom could still help. And as the outside powers bearing the greatest responsibility, they should. How? By promoting a much more intensive round of regional diplomacy aimed at creating a lasting structure for gulf security, with the kind of cooperative mechanisms that brought Eastern and Western Europe together after the end of the cold war.

True, Iraq's neighbors must make some hard decisions, since the outside powers can't remain in the country much longer. But London and Washington, with the help of the United Nations, should convene the talks, exert pressure on local states to find a way forward and coordinate international support. It is high time that the U.S. and the U.K. put their weight behind a diplomatic, rather than a military, process.

A similar logic holds on Iran. Tehran's ambitions will make accommodation complicated. Some of its goals, especially for nuclear weapons, are simply unacceptable. But Iran does have legitimate national and regional interests, and its people have normal economic and social goals that deserve to be met. There is therefore an opportunity to engage the Iranian nation on what it wants for the future. Why set preconditions just for talking, when delay plays into the hands of the hard-liners there (since it gives them more time to build nuclear weapons)?

Engagement also makes sense in the case of Palestine. No solution to this dispute will be possible until the centers of gravity in Israeli and Palestinian public opinion move within touching distance of ...