JERUSALEM -- One of the most memorable quotes in cinema is taken from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: "If you have to shoot, shoot; don't talk.''
In the Middle East, however, the more appropriate quote is, ''If you don't talk, you shoot.'' This is why Israel is soon going to sit with the Palestinians in Annapolis, under the watchful eyes of the American hosts, to talk again about peace. Because there is no vacuum in our troublesome region, and if the energy is not funneled into peaceful venues, it will eventually erupt in violent ways.
Yet, the Annapolis conference is not the talk of the day in Israel. Yosi Benayoun, the Israeli soccer striker who plays with Liverpool, the top British team, and who scored three goals in the European Champions League, was a bigger story in Israeli media this week, and not only in the sports sections. According to the recent Peace Index, a survey conducted by Tel Aviv University professors Ephraim Yaar and Tamar Hermann and published by Haaretz newspaper on Wednesday, only 27 percent of the Israelis steadily follow the reports about the conference, 47 only sometimes, 23 percent not at all, and the rest had never heard of the conference or did not answer.
When it comes to expectations from the Annapolis conference, Israelis are evidently not holding their breath. According to the same Peace Index, half of the Israelis thought that the conference ''could not yield a basic clarification of the disputes between Israel and the Palestinians,'' while 40 percent thought it could. When asked if the conference ''could significantly advance the chances of reaching a permanent peace agreement,'' the same results emerged: 40 percent believed it could, while 51 percent didn't.
As if this is not enough, two thirds of Israelis believe that the Palestinians haven't changed their basic attitudes toward Israel -- that they never recognized its right to exist and would have destroyed Israel if they only could.
In the background of this mix of indifference and limited hopes lies a precedent, which had a profound impact on the attitudes of Israelis toward the prospects of peace with the Palestinians. In the 1990s, the Oslo process generated hopes that Israel would give the Palestinians sovereignty and, in return, the Palestinians would give Israel security (I know, I know, I was one of the Oslo enthusiasts, so don't waste your time reminding me).
When the gradual process of Oslo didn't produce the expected results, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak decided to take a bold step: In Camp David, in the summer of 2000, he offered the Palestinians almost everything they had ever wanted -- only to be flatly rejected by Yasser Arafat, who launched the second intifada instead.
So after such disappointment, why is Israel still going to Annapolis? Maybe it's like a second marriage: The victory of hope over experience.
Indeed, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is not Arafat, who, paraphrasing Abba Eban's quote, ''couldn't reach a bridge without double-crossing it.'' Abbas seems more sincere than Arafat, but he is also much weaker: Gaza is in the hands of Hamas, and in the West Bank, his position is shaky, too. So even if one believes his promises to try to suppress Hamas, can he really deliver?
Back to the basic question, then: Why go to Annapolis? Only to create expectations that, if destroyed, could lead to frustration and more violence?
The answer lies in the same Peace Index. Yaar and Hermann found out that ''as opposed to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who says Israeli society is weaker than a spider web, the Jewish public has high regards for Israeli society's resilience in the conflict with the Palestinians.'' Seventy percent answered that ''if the present situation continues, Israeli society can maintain its inner strength better than Palestinian society can,'' while only 12 percent thought the opposite.
In other words, Israelis are self-confident enough to give it a try, even if they don't have high expectations. They feel that they can be even generous, if the Palestinians turn out for once to be trustworthy partners. And if things go wrong? Then they can take care of themselves. This is why they let their prime minister, Ehud Olmert, make another attempt to make peace.
Or, at least, talk about peace. It's better than shooting.
This article was first published in The Miami Herald on November 9, 2007.
http://www.miami.com
The opinions expressed herein are the author's own personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of the Israel Democracy Institute.