With a new round of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks set to begin on Thursday, critics cite a number of reasons for pessimism: neither side appears willing to make major concessions and each is there merely to appease Washington.

    But there may be a ray of hope, others argued, as both sides support a two-state solution, violence on the ground is way down and each side is exhausted by the conflict.

    The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama has set a one-year deadline for striking a deal, but critics said the timeline is much too ambitious, as efforts by previous U.S. administrations over many years have failed to resolve the conflict.

    While some have applauded Obama for bringing the issue to the front burner, others said the potential for success is low.

    The Palestinian leadership is weakened by a rift between Fatah and Hamas, and Palestinian National Authority (PNA) President Mahmoud Abbas has no other options but to accept what Obama is presenting, some analysts argued.

    On the Israeli side, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the governing coalition have shown little interest in a negotiated solution with the Palestinians, some experts said.

    Robert Danin, senior fellow for Middle East and Africa studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, argued on the organization's website that trust is absent from Israeli-Palestinian relations, as the Second Intifada of 2001-2003 killed not only thousands of Israelis and Palestinians, but also demolished the sense for most that peace is possible.

    Abbas also recently threatened to pull out of the negotiations unless Netanyahu agreed to extend a moratorium on the building of new settlements, which expires at the end of September.

    Despite such concerns, there are reasons for optimism, some analysts said.

    Martin S. Indyk, vice president and director of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, contended that the current negotiating environment is more conducive to peace than at any point in the last decade.

    Now, peace depends on the leaders' willpower, he wrote in the New York Times. The violence that plagued the region in the 1990s is way down and the PNA is policing the West Bank to thwart attacks on Israelis and prove that it is reliable as a negotiating partner, he argued.

    The number of Israeli citizens killed in Palestinian militants' attacks has plunged from more than 400 in 2002 to six last year and two so far this year, he noted, adding that Israeli settlement building has slowed because of Israel's 10-month moratorium on settlement building.

    While Netanyahu has refused to extend the moratorium, the two sides could strike a compromise if the Israeli prime minister restricts building to modest growth in the areas that will probably be absorbed into Israel after an agreement is made, he argued.

    Israel could also vow to prevent its army from entering areas under Palestinian control and allow the Palestinian police to patrol in most West Bank villages, he contended.

    The public on both sides, and a majority of Arabs, also support a two-state solution, he said. For its part, the Obama administration is now faced with deciding what role to play in the negotiations.

    Amjad Atallah, co-director of the Middle East task force at the New America Foundation, said Obama has two choices, either to play the role of facilitator or negotiator, although it has so far chosen to be the former.

    Despite efforts to remain aloof, Washington is a key player and has a vested interest in ending the conflict, some analysts argued.

    "The United States is the third combatant in this conflict," Atallah said, adding that Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory would be impossible without Washington's support.

    The existence of the Palestinian Authority is also a function of U.S. policy and European and American largess, he said.

    "For us to go into this process pretending we are just simply a facilitator and who is attempting to have the two parties air out two completely different perspectives ... and then believe that will somehow lead to a conclusion, is going to make everyone very unhappy," he said at a recent panel discussion in Washington.x The United States has in the past adopted a more take-charge approach to peace talks during other conflicts, noted Atallah, who added that he does not necessarily advocate such an approach.

    During negotiations on the war in Bosnia, for example, participants were unable to come to an agreement for a number of years.

    "It was only when the United States took over the process ... and actually forced through a solution that they all had to grumble and accept an agreement," he said.