It is fashionable to dismiss the current round of Middle East peace negotiations as pointless diplomatic kabuki. But it’s not. Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas — unlike his predecessor, Yasser Arafat — seems genuinely interested in transforming the West Bank into a normal, peaceable society. (Indeed, to a great extent, he already has.) And while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu routinely is described as “hawkish,” he is not delusional: He realizes that the only long-term solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem is a two-state solution; and that, until one is achieved, the spectacle of Palestinian suffering will strengthen the hand of unstable regional warmongers, from Beirut to Damascus to Tehran.

Moreover, both sides have learned from past diplomatic failures, and have avoided the mistake of pushing divisive issues off into the future. They have elected instead to tackle the most difficult negotiations — over borders, refugees, settlements and the status of Jerusalem — before announcing interim agreements. This week, U.S. envoy George Mitchell declared that these peace talks are more productive and serious, in their early stages at least, than those he brokered in Northern Ireland.

Critics who say that Mr. Abbas is not serious about peace should re-read Khaled Abu Toameh’s column, which appeared in Thursday’s National Post. As Mr. Toameh argued, the mere fact that the PA President is sitting down to talk with the Israelis means he has a bullseye on his head — the mark carried by every Arab “traitor” who commits the crime of negotiating with Zionists. Former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who traded land for peace, could attest to that — if he hadn’t been killed by Islamists.

As the talks proceed, things will only get more difficult for Mr. Abbas. That is because everyone involved knows that no peace deal can be reached unless the Palestinians give up the “right of return,” which would allow millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees to flood Israel’s pre-1967 boundaries, and thereby hopelessly destabilize the Jewish state. For years, Palestinians have been fed the myth that one day they would be permitted to march back into villages and homes once owned by their great-grandparents. Many still make a fetish of their old house keys, and name sections of refugee camps after Israeli neighbourhoods they have never seen, but which they imagine to be their true home.

If a peace agreement is reached, Mr. Abbas will be the one to tell these people that their dream is over, that they will have to build new lives in the West Bank or Gaza. He will also have to cross Hamas’ ultimate red line and recognize Israel as a legitimate, and Jewish, state. Not an enviable task.

But the prize of peace is worth it — for Palestinians and Jews alike. This year, the economy in the West Bank has been growing at the shockingly high annualized rate of 9%, according to the International Monetary Fund — primarily because the PA has almost entirely wiped out the local terror apparatus, and Israel has responded by easing blockades. This is just a taste of the prosperity that will come with a true and lasting peace. The transformation of Palestinian society from an anti-Semitic martyrdom cult to a modern, market-oriented nation-state could be Mr. Abbas’ legacy.

Mr. Netanyahu should consider his own legacy, as well. For years, the world has had no more articulate advocate for Israel and its right to defend itself. The Israeli Prime Minister often speaks in the soaring language of principles and rights — including Israel’s right to create defensible borders and expand existing settlements in the West Bank. Only grudgingly did he agree to a 10-month freeze on new settlement construction — a period that is set to expire later this month. As things stand, there is no indication that he will extend the moratorium. Mr. Abbas has said his team will walk out of peace talks if he doesn’t.

Mr. Netanyahu should relent on this issue, and pledge to an indefinite freeze on new settlement construction during the peace talks. Israel’s supporters have all sorts of perfectly valid arguments about why, in theory, the Israeli Prime Minister should have no obligation to make such a pledge. But negotiations aren’t conducted in theory. They’re conducted with other human beings — in this case, Palestinians whose entire political narrative is based on an obsessive fear of Jews taking land they regard as theirs. The ongoing construction of new settlements is the steel and wood embodiment of those fears.

It would not be a sign of appeasement or weakness on Mr. Netanyahu’s part to recognize that fact. Indeed, history would remember him kindly for his courage.