Pundits and analysts seem to be competing over who can be more dismissive of the Annapolis conference. A “charade,” a “mere photo-op,” a “parody” - are some of the kinder expressions used to trivialize the gathering by those who seem happy to bury it before it is born.

These nattering nabobs of negativity – to borrow William Safire’s phrase – are both wrongheaded and wrong.

They are wrong because the Annapolis summit is not intended to result in peace now. It is intended to launch a new Israeli-Palestinian peace process. It is intended to make a statement that bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are resuming and that this time negotiations are based on a sounder, more promising foundation. Annapolis is not intended to be a venue for negotiations. It is rather a beginning of a new, somewhat different Israeli-Palestinian negotiating process.

The Annapolis conference is supposed to generate drama. Call it a photo-op. Call it a media event. It doesn’t matter. What matters is that it will mark the beginning of a process and that it does so with some drama.

How is this process different? First - for the firs time - it is sponsored by an American administration that says it views Israeli-Palestinian peace as a vital U.S. national security interest. The administration apparently recognizes now how much Israeli-Palestinian peace could help America achieve its goals in the region, particularly its efforts to curtail the regional influence of Islamist militants led by Iran. Second, for the first time, there is broad Arab support for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Third, there is a Palestinian partner who is regarded as legitimate and credible by Israel, the U.S. and other stakeholders in the peace process. Fourth, there is a mutual commitment by the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to steer the negotiating process toward resolving the “core issues” of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict while detangling the complex reality on the ground of the West Bank.

For those who support a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian peace – a large majority of Israelis and American Jews do, as do most Palestinians – this new process is an exciting development. But there is little excitement, whether in Israel or on the other side of the Atlantic

Unfortunately, past failures, violence and the lack of any significant positive movement in the seven years that passed since the collapse of the Barak-Arafat negotiations have left almost everyone weary, skeptical and cynical.

That’s why drama is important. An impressive event in Annapolis might could rekindle some hope and trust in the viability of a negotiated peace process. If that happens – and there is good reason to believe it will - the conference will have achieved significant success. That is why eulogizing the conference before it happens is simply wrong.

Obviously, garnering enthusiasm for the relaunched peace process is but a means to an end. For this process to succeed, Israelis and Palestinians must follow through with real negotiations and with on-the-ground implementation of peace-oriented measures. The U.S. government must follow-up with robust leadership and. The Arab world and international community must demonstrate real support. Such follow-up efforts could turn into a credible, ongoing process. We will probably refer to it in the future as the “Annapolis process.”

Focusing on the Annapolis conference rather than on the Annapolis process is not only wrong. It’s wrongheaded. Done right, the process may bring about the peace that Israelis so yearn for, peace not only with the Palestinians but with Syria and Lebanon, as well as normalization with the entire Arab world.

Israelis don’t need American naysayers. They need American friends who can influence America’s government to stay engaged and steer a responsible, credible diplomatic process that will provide peace with security for a democratic Jewish state.