IT SEEMS to happen every time. The moment Israel comes close to getting a prime minister serious about making peace with the Palestinians, fate steps in to block the way. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated; Shimon Peres was rejected by the voters; no sooner had Ariel Sharon come round to ceding (far too little) land for peace than he was felled by a stroke. Ehud Olmert let himself be dragged into a calamitous war in Lebanon and now Tzipi Livni, a punchy politician from the right who has seen the light and started negotiating in good faith with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, has tripped at the final fence in her bid to take Mr Olmert’s place.

In Ms Livni’s case, the failure was self-inflicted. Mr Olmert is stepping down amid a blizzard of corruption allegations. Had Ms Livni been able to tempt enough of Israel’s many parties into a coalition, she could have taken over without facing the voters. But she refused to give two religious parties what they demanded: money for their special causes and a pledge not to talk to the Palestinians about Jerusalem. The upshot is that Israel will hold an election in February. And although early polls put her ahead, there is a fair chance that Israelis will vote instead to bring back the Likud’s hawkish former prime minister, Binyamin (“Bibi”) Netanyahu.

That puts the peace process into cold storage for the time being. But in the Middle East there is always a silver lining, or at least a dull grey one. Here, in ascending order of brightness, are three consoling thoughts.

The least consoling is that in spite of the talks Mr Olmert and Ms Livni have been having with the Palestinians, the peace process was not going anywhere anyway. At George Bush’s behest at Annapolis a year ago, Mr Olmert and Ms Livni have been exploring their differences with Mr Abbas, but they have got nowhere near to narrowing them enough to give Mr Bush the agreement in principle he wanted before leaving the White House. And it could only ever have been “in principle” because the Palestinians are divided and Mr Abbas does not speak for Hamas, which runs the Gaza Strip and commands the loyalty of many Palestinians in the West Bank too.

A more consoling observation is that if Mr Netanyahu does win in February, that need not kill all hope of peacemaking. It is a fallacy that peace in the Middle East can be achieved only when Israelis vote in a dove. Hawks can make peace too: Begin bought peace with Egypt by handing back the Sinai peninsula. Even Mr Netanyahu had, with bad faith and worse grace, to go along with parts of the Oslo peace process (withdrawing from most of Hebron and signing the Wye accords) when he was prime minister in the 1990s. He was pushed in this direction by two forces: American pressure and the desire of most Israelis to extricate themselves from endless conflict.
The lessons learnt

The brightest consolation is that neither of these forces is extinct. All but a minority of Israelis have learnt from two Palestinian intifadas that the notion of a Greater Israel extending from the sea to the river is yesterday’s fantasy. The separation barrier, though hated by Palestinians, has made Israelis understand that they can hold on at most to the sliver of the West Bank containing the most thickly populated settlements. Mr Olmert, himself a former Likudnik, said recently that Israel would have eventually to give up almost all the lands it conquered in 1967, including the Arab parts of Jerusalem.

The main question for most Israelis is not whether to withdraw, but the more perplexing when—and how to do it safely. These questions can be answered only with some tough love and hands-on diplomacy from an engaged America. Like many presidents, Mr Bush waited too long to show an interest in Palestine. Distracted by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and repelled by the duplicity of Yasser Arafat, he gave Mr Sharon a free pass, extracting nothing more than Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, a gamble that backfired.

In January, however, a new president will have a chance to push for peace. Whether it is Barack Obama or John McCain, he should grab it early. Palestine cannot be the priority of a president who has also to save capitalism, finish two foreign wars and stop the world melting. That is why appointing a senior envoy (an ex-secretary of state would be nice) is a good idea. So is Mr Obama’s plan to test cautiously whether Syria, Iran or both can be lured into diplomacy.

The new man will take office before Israelis go to the polls. It is not his job to tell Israelis who to vote for, but Israelis like their prime ministers to be persona grata in Washington. So the new president should make an early statement of tough intent that includes a demand for Israel to fulfil its promises to stop expanding settlements and dismantle the outposts deep in the West Bank. Blame for the impasse does not lie with Israel alone. But if Israel intends to leave one day, it had best start proving it—not least to its foremost ally.