JACK GUEZ/AFP/Getty Images

Warm welcome: President Bush has a large fan base in Israel.

Foreign Policy: You’ve twice served as Israel’s ambassador to the United States. Can you give us an idea of the nature of meetings between U.S. and Israeli officials? Are they formal and structured, or informal?

Zalman Shoval: It depends on the people on both sides. If you take former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, it was quite formal, but if you take people who are more personable, like former U.S. President Bill Clinton on the one side or former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on the other side, it can be more informal. Certainly the meetings between former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, if they were with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, were very formal. But if they were with President Clinton, it was a much freer atmosphere. It depends on the level. If the ambassador has developed a good relationship, it can be very informal, like between myself and former U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross. It depends on the personalities of the characters on both sides.

FP: What do you think President Bush is hoping to accomplish on his trip?

ZS: People in Israel are asking themselves whether he comes as a cheerleader for the process, especially for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert—who needs some cheering up—or whether he comes as an umpire. He probably comes as both. He wants to get into the process, but I think he has become more realistic about it. In the last couple of days he said that the United States is not going to impose any timeline; he just hopes that it will make progress. He said that what he believes the Annapolis process could or should accomplish is to draw up the outline of a future Palestinian state, which is very different than having a Palestinian state established by January 2009.

FP: It seems as if he has lowered the expectations for this trip.

ZS: I think he definitely lowered the expectations. Looking from the outside and the inside, this is probably the correct attitude to take. It’s almost inconceivable to think that the so-called core issues can be resolved anytime soon, certainly not within the year, probably not for even longer. For Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to agree to do away with the right of return, which Israel will insist on, for him, is politically impossible. And for Olmert to agree to all matters relating to Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, and other things is impossible. Olmert has a coalition of two parties that have told him in no uncertain terms that if he is going to negotiate the core issues, they are going to bolt the government. This means that by January 2009, we’re not going to have a final agreement but an election campaign in Israel.

FP: There are reports that the Israeli public is ambivalent about Bush’s visit. Do you get that sense? How is the president perceived in Israel right now?

ZS: Public opinion is the last taxi driver you talk to. First of all, we have to look at this on two different levels. There’s no doubt that President Bush, with the whole range of Israeli public opinions on the right and left—I’m not talking about the extremes—is a very popular president, very well liked. People consider him a friend to Israel, not just because he is a friend to Israel, but because, whatever the missteps may have been in Iraq, people in Israel appreciate that Bush was the first international leader to recognize the danger of jihad, or Muslim fundamentalism and terrorism. Israelis feel as if we are right on the front line of that.

On another level, there’s a new public opinion poll out saying that the majority of Israelis and the majority of Palestinians think the Annapolis process is going to fail. On the Israeli side, there are a few different opinions about Annapolis. One, people think the merits of the core issues are negative from Israel’s point of view, whether from ideological perspectives or for security reasons. After the Gaza withdrawal, most Israelis say, “If we don’t stay in the West Bank, at least in regards to security, military, and civilian infrastructure, the West Bank is going to turn into another Gaza.”

The other school of thought is “We are very much for Annapolis. We want it to succeed. But we realize that there’s not much chance that this Israeli government, being as weak as it is, and the Palestinian leadership, being as weak as it is, can really move things forward.” Another group says, “All this doesn’t matter one way or another. Let’s not get excited. Nothing is going to come of it anyway.”