The moment of truth is approaching for President Barack Obama’s much hyped initiative to re-launch the Middle East peace talks with the objective of creating an independent Palestinian entity based on the two-state solution. He is expected to present the outline of his plan at the UN’s General Assembly meetings in New York this September.

For months, US officials have been preparing the ground for the unveiling of Obama’s vision to end decades of conflict between Arabs and Israel. Special envoy George Mitchell has spent many hours with Israeli, Palestinian and Arab officials discussing conditions and prerequisites.

Two main issues have surfaced representing an obstacle to the resumption of negotiations. One is the Israeli freeze on all settlement activities in occupied territories, and the other is Arab acquiescence to offer confidence-building overtures to Israel. Both issues have proved weighty and untenable so far.

Israel’s right-wing government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, has resisted US pressure to place a moratorium on settlement activities. A last minute deal is in the works, with the US toning down its demands, to allow Israel to commit to some sort of a temporary “freeze” that would exclude East Jerusalem while allowing for an array of ongoing projects to continue. It’s a formula that falls short of Palestinian, and Arab, demand that all settlement activities be halted in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

As to the issue of normalization, such as opening of Israeli trade missions, the easing of passport rules and permission for Israeli over-flights, the Arab position has been summed up by Saudi Arabia during Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal’s recent visit to Washington. He adamantly rejected attempts to reward Israel before a comprehensive peace agreement is reached. The same position was echoed by President Hosni Mubarak recently during his visit to the US capital.

While on a visit to the British capital last week, Netanyahu appeared to be ready to accept the possibility of a Palestinian state that is nonmilitarized and has no control over its airspace. But he would not compromise on Jerusalem. It is believed that such a shift in Netanyahu’s position coincides with the Obama outline expected to be announced at the UN.

The resumption of negotiations is a priority for Mahmoud Abbas and his Palestinian National Authority. The Palestinian president has been preparing the domestic scene for such a possibility. In the past few weeks he was able to convene the national congress of Fatah, the largest of Palestinian organizations, in Bethlehem and held internal elections to the group’s revolutionary council and central committee. That was followed by a meeting of the Palestine National Council (PNC), which also saw new leaders taking over. In both occasions Abbas and his close allies successfully tightened their grip hold over the two organizations, thus opening the way for the president to move forward almost without opposition.

THE effects of these developments were noticed almost immediately. The final round of Palestinian reconciliation talks, which was supposed to take place last week in Cairo, was postponed for another month. The rift between Hamas and the PNA is wider than ever before.

It is possible that the United States has managed to create an acceptable middle ground on which Israel and the PNA could meet few weeks before President Obama launches his vision/outline/doctrine on resuming peace negotiations.

Certainly Netanyahu needs to overcome his differences with the US administration over the Palestinians so he can get back to focusing on Iran and its nuclear threats. President Abbas, whose credibility has been tarnished, needs to give some hope to his people by taking credit for restarting peace talks. President Obama, who has promised so much to the Arabs and Muslims at the outset of his presidency, needs to give the impression that he is finally delivering.

It is a symbiotic relationship and it is no different from how things have always been. The promise of a new chapter and, more importantly, new policies by the US toward this region is hardly being met.

Meanwhile, when politicians calculate and miscalculate, as they always do, it is refreshing to hear a different voice. This time it is the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen who has written a seething critique of the failure of America’s “strategic communication” with the Muslim world.

In an essay published in Joint Forces Quarterly last week, Adm. Mullen wrote that no amount of public relations will establish credibility if American behavior overseas is perceived as arrogant, uncaring or insulting. “I would argue that most strategic communication problems are not communication problems at all,” he wrote. “They are policy and execution problems. Each time we fail to live up to our values or don’t follow up on a promise, we look more and more like the arrogant Americans the enemy claims we are.”

President Obama will be well-advised to read Mullen’s essay and then figure out if his new vision for peace in the region will be seen as a departure from previous policies that had failed to meet Palestinian national aspirations.

To bring on Israelis and Palestinians for a new round of protracted and impotent negotiations will prove self-defeating. The historian, Francis Fukuyama, predicted that President Obama will launch a new and defining era of new-age ideas that will become the consensus points of reference in the coming years. Achieving just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is an objective that has eluded many presidents and leaders. Obama promised a different course, but can he deliver?