Yesterday's suicide bombing atrocity in west Jerusalem will intensify Israeli-Palestinian antagonisms and drive those who hope to revive the peace process even further into despair. The attack, in which at least 14 people died and over 100 were injured, demonstrates there can be no complete security in this confrontation. Civilians are terribly vulnerable to such terrorist attacks. But if the only response is to intensify retaliation, there will be a drift towards a much more dangerous conflict with profound implications for the rest of the Middle East region - and, indeed, for wider global stability.
After the bombing, the cycle of blame vividly illustrates the intractable nature of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israelis impatiently rejected a call by the chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Mr Yasser Arafat, for an immediate joint ceasefire declaration. This would begin to implement the recent Mitchell proposals on renewing the peace process under international supervision. They dubbed his call for a joint ceasefire an effort to avoid retaliation and said he should take responsibility for the attack by arresting leaders of the Islamic Jihad group which has claimed it. President Bush added his voice to that Israeli demand, saying violence must cease if peace efforts are to be renewed.
That sounds fine in principle but is quite unrealistic in practice. The intensifying pattern of bombings, shootings, selected assassinations of Palestinian leaders and tank and missile attacks has so polarised Palestinian society that Mr Arafat's capacity to move against opponents committed to such violence is substantially reduced. Already there is talk of him making an alliance with the Islamist Hamas party, which rejects the peace process. In these circumstances, Mr Arafat's call for a joint ceasefire initiative with the Israelis makes political sense if the cycle of violence is to be stopped. Retaliation answers the understandable urge for revenge but will further undermine the prospects of peace.
Mr Arafat's call for international supervision of a ceasefire also makes sense. While this conflict must eventually be settled between the two main protagonists, its potential consequences are too serious to be left to themselves alone to determine. The Bush administration's indecision about whether to become centrally involved, has made the recent confrontations worse. The European Union and the Arab states have stated their support for the Mitchell formula calling for a ceasefire, a cooling-off period, a freeze on Israeli settlements and a return to the negotiating table. They should now press hard for that agenda to be adopted at the United Nations. Ireland should support such demands as it prepares to take up the chairmanship of the Security Council in October.