In short order, Israel has reached a truce with the radical Islamist group Hamas, acknowledged secretive negotiations with Syria, and declared a willingness to discuss peace with Lebanon. All this comes on top of regular meetings between Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Diplomacy between Israel and its neighbors has been almost nonexistent this decade. So why is all this happening now? And where is the United States, the traditional broker between Israel and the Arabs?

Three developments are driving this process. First, Olmert is facing serious political problems, including a corruption investigation over cash donations from a U.S. supporter. Olmert badly needs to change the headlines from the legal inquires swirling around him. He has now been in office more than two years and Israel's unstable coalition governments rarely last longer than this. With his political career in jeopardy, Olmert's best chance for extending his tenure is to ring up a diplomatic breakthrough.

Second, Israel's military might has not proved decisive in recent confrontations. The Israeli army largely quelled the Palestinian uprising that erupted in 2000. But Hamas, the most violent Palestinian group, only grew stronger politically. The same was true in Lebanon, where Israel waged war against Hezbollah during the summer of 2006, only to see Hezbollah emerge as a more potent political force. The Israeli public is weary of these inconclusive battles, and this has encouraged the Israeli leadership to seek compromises.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the United States is preoccupied with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Washington has been much less active elsewhere in the region, and has boycotted its adversaries.

Israel and its Arab rivals have seen conditions deteriorate on several fronts, and have taken it upon themselves to act now, rather than wait for the United States to show greater interest.

Egypt brokered the truce between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, while Turkey has acted as the go-between for Israel and Syria. It's too early to tell whether either initiative will produce any real breakthroughs. Odds are they won't.

However, the developments do point to a significant shift in the Middle East. The United States sought to reshape the region after the Sept. 11 attacks, but this has proved a mammoth undertaking with the outcome still uncertain. As the United States has bumped up against the limits of changes it can impose, regional actors have been more willing to step in.

Israel and Hamas have refused to deal directly with one another since Hamas' founding two decades ago. But after Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006 and seized full control of Gaza in the summer of 2007, some minimal contact became inescapable.

Israel controls Gaza's borders, which means that everything going into the coastal territory, including food, fuel and medicine, has to be coordinated between the two sides. The Israeli restrictions made normal life impossible in Gaza. These positions were very much in line with the views held by Ariel Sharon, Israel's prime minister from 2001 to 2006.

But Olmert has taken a very different approach. The Israeli air force bombed a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor last September, an attack that risked unleashing widespread turmoil. Yet within months, the two countries began under-the-radar negotiations moderated by Turkey. Next month, Olmert and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad plan to attend a conference in France, raising the possibility of face-to-face talks between the leaders.

In Lebanon, the government has snubbed the Israeli overture, but Israel and Hezbollah have been engaged in indirect talks on a prisoner exchange.

The United States is still sponsoring the talks between Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Abbas. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has visited the region almost monthly since discussions were launched late last year. But the two sides have given no sign that they will reach an agreement, or even the outline of deal, before President Bush leaves office in January.

Bush's successor will inherit a fluid Middle East where the rules are changing. Many of the parties that have been fighting this decade are now willing to talk, and they no longer see Washington as the exclusive mediator.

Greg Myre is an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute. He was based in Jerusalem and covered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from 1999 until June 2007 for The New York Times and The Associated Press. He wrote this commentary for McClatchy-Tribune News Service.