Sometimes, important news events manage to sneak through under the radar. That has happened many times in the Arab-Israeli conflict, which usually receives far too much media attention, often with damaging consequences.

Ambitious efforts to forge peace have often cracked under the red-hot spotlight, where negotiators and politicians make vows and promises they later find difficult to retract. But quieter, behind the scenes activities have a history of producing happy surprises.

Of course, quiet efforts can also fail. There are never any guarantees. But still, it was a nice surprise to start the New Year with news that Israelis and Palestinians had their first face-to-face meeting in 16 months. Nobody calls the new round of meetings in the Jordanian capital “negotiations.” And everyone is understandably expressing extreme skepticism about the chances for success. It’s true that there are many reasons to expect that not much, if anything, will come from this exploratory round aimed at seeing if there is any chance to restart peace talks. And yet, some chance is better than none.

Under normal circumstances, the first meeting might have made large, bold headlines. But most journalists were either on vacation or in Iowa when word came out that behind-the-scenes prodding by King Abdullah of Jordan persuaded Palestinians to sit down with Israelis.

The meetings are not considered negotiations because Palestinians are holding fast to their demand that Israel stop all Jewish construction in East Jerusalem or the West Bank before they will negotiate. Israel says any compromises will be made as a result of talks, not as a pre-requisite for them.

Israel and the so-called Quartet for Peace, made up of the United Nations, the European Union, Russia and the United States, say it’s time for full negotiations without preconditions.

The prospect that these preliminary non-negotiations will fail are high. And yet, the fact that expectations are minimal makes it harder to be disappointed. And history has shown that often, the quieter the talks the better the outcome.

The two most transformative events in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict exploded onto the front pages in 1977 with news so surprising ― and so good for those who wanted peace ― that people could hardly believe it was true.

We remember the 1978 Camp David Accords that brought a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt as the turning point in the Middle East. But what made the deal possible were secret negotiations held months earlier in Morocco between emissaries of Egypt and Israel, paving the way for a visit and a historic speech by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat at the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, in Jerusalem.

Not even the Carter White House knew about the talks. Less than a year later, another set of secret meetings, this time with deep involvement from the United States, gave birth to the first peace deal between an Arab government and the Jewish state.

Fifteen years later, the other major breakthrough, this one between Israelis and Palestinians, also came as the result of secret meetings. The quiet discussions held in Norway produced the Oslo Accords and the construction of what was supposed to be a path to reconciliation and a lasting peace between the two sides, including the establishment of a Palestinian state.

In order for historic agreements to be reached, many currents of history have to converge. First, the right people must emerge. Individuals who are not only committed to peace but willing to take risks and break with the conventional wisdom are essential. There is also a need for the right historic environment, one that helps individuals decide that a path to peace is the wisest course.

President Sadat decided to make peace with Israel after the 1973 war. That was a war that Egypt lost decisively, but only after initially bringing Israel to the edge of survival, as close as it had come to being wiped off the map. Egyptian pride was restored. But Sadat also realized the route of war was a dead end.

The Oslo accords came after the fall of the Soviet Union and the 1991 Gulf War. The world had changed. The Cold War was over. Palestinian chief Yasser Arafat had lost Moscow’s sponsorship.

In 2012 we also have a Middle East in the midst of a fundamental transformation. We have had no signs that truly great leaders are in charge today. Nobody expects these talks to succeed, so at least we will not be disappointed. But, there is always a chance, however small, that the men in charge will surprise us by rising to the occasion.

By Frida Ghitis

Frida Ghitis writes about global affairs for The Miami Herald. Readers may send her email at fjghitis@gmail.com. ― Ed.

(MCT Information Services)