In the coming days the Middle East will host important visits by key international players as the United States hopes to get Israeli-Palestinian peace talks back on track.

The star-studded lineup includes U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Before they cross the Mediterranean, U.S. special envoy George Mitchell will make the journey this weekend. While the others will be in town to give their backing to renewed peace negotiations, it is up to Mitchell to enable that process to begin.

He received a major boost on Wednesday, when in a meeting Arab League foreign ministers gave their support to the American proposal to push ahead with indirect talks.

In the wake of that gathering in Cairo, both Israel and the Palestinians issued statements saying they would give proximity talks a chance to work.

Washington also lauded the Arab League vote of support. "This is positive. And as we've said for some time, we believe that negotiations should and ultimately will take place through a variety of channels," said State Department spokesman Phillip Crowley.

"NOT REAL PROGRESS"

While the U.S. is delighted that it received the backing to finally get the peace ball rolling once again, analysts are not convinced indirect or proximity talks are the best way forward.

Proximity talks involve the parties being physically near to one another but not in the same room. An intermediary shuttles from one room to another, passing messages until there is white smoke. At that point the sides agree to face-to-face meetings.

This system has been used in Cyprus and by Mitchell himself with considerable success in Northern Ireland after some initial hiccups.

However, as former Israeli Foreign Ministry Director General Alon Liel told Xinhua, in the case of the Israelis and the Palestinians, it would be an "embarrassing" exercise given that the negotiators from the two sides have known each other for years and in some cases are close friends.

It is a view shared by leading American analysts.

"This is a backward step. Why are proximity talks needed when the parties are already talking directly?" said Bill Rugh, a former American ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

"I am not sure it is all that consequential," said Nathan Brown, a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.

Such a practice was adopted decades ago when the Arabs refused to talk to the Israelis, said Rugh.

"It sounds to many people like another stalling tactic on the part of the Israelis. It is of no use to the Obama team," added Rugh, who is currently the Edward R. Murrow visiting professor of Public Diplomacy at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

CONDITIONAL TALKS

Initially, the Palestinians had insisted they would not talk with the Israelis at all until a full Israeli building freeze was in place in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. The idea of indirect talks was a face-saving move allowing the Palestinians to enter negotiations without appearing to have made a major u-turn.

The Arab League also gave the Palestinians some wiggle room by saying the issue would have to be reassessed in four months and a full freeze would have to be in place for direct negotiations to start.

"The indirect negotiations should not be turned into direct ones automatically ... direct Palestinian-Israeli negotiations require stopping all forms of settlements in the occupied lands including Al-Quds (Jerusalem)," Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said in a statement on Wednesday.

Whatever the thinking was in Cairo, Brown believes it was extremely well received by Washington.

"From the perspective of the Obama administration, this is the real positive development -- they needed an Arab League umbrella to pull the Palestinians into the talks," he said.

However, if the Obama administration believes it can gain political mileage from indirect talks, it should think again, said Brown. "An agreement would give them mileage; merely starting talks will convince few sceptics," he said.

NEXT MOVES

Mitchell is expected in the region on Saturday and will begin his work in earnest on Sunday. Reports from Washington suggest the Americans would like to see a formal announcement made by Biden regarding the resumption of talks during his visit next week.

Diplomats from several countries linked to the peace process have suggested it may take a little more time for the logistics to be put in place before both Israel and the Palestinians are prepared to publicly commit wholeheartedly to the talks.

Whenever the indirect negotiations begin, even if they are negotiations about negotiations, Washington believes they are a step in the right direction after a hiatus of more than a year.

If the parties begin going over old ground and nothing more they are talking, even if the process might be somewhat awkward and embarrassing.

However, analysts say while talking is good, the process can only be measured by its end result, and many remain highly unconvinced that agreement will be the final product.

Too many facts on the ground weigh against the success of any parley, with some suggesting that the sides are much closer to another period of violence than a handshake on the lawns of the White House.