Peace in Danger

Ms Madelaine Albright faces the most demanding task of her period in office this week as she flies to the Middle East in an effort…

Ms Madelaine Albright faces the most demanding task of her period in office this week as she flies to the Middle East in an effort to save the peace process from collapse. Her advisers have been playing down the prospect of reviving it, but it is difficult to see what other role the US can fulfill. The Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Netanyahu, virtually wrote off the Oslo process after last week's renewed suicide bombing atrocity in Jerusalem. His advisers say they cannot continue with it, given the failure of Mr Yasser Arafat to confront those who are organising the civilian attacks. The Palestinian leader is reported to have concluded that he can do no more real business with Israel while Mr Netanyahu remains in office. In these circumstances, with so little to show for his peace-making, it would be politically disastrous for him to do the Israelis' bidding by decisive moves against Hamas, although the arrests yesterday of their activists in advance of Ms Albright's visit show that he is capable of it. Before the latest atrocities, US policy had hinged on speeding up the negotiations, pressuring Mr Arafat to take action on security and the Israelis to put a halt to settlements. Given the outright deterioration of relations between the two men and their administrations, it is unlikely that such an initiative has a chance of succeeding. The US has, nevertheless, powerful means of bringing pressure to bear if it chooses to use them. It must be applied evenly to both parties to have any chance of succeeding. Policy must also be conducted in the light of the dangers that arise from any prolonged failure to negotiate.

Prolonged stalemate is not an option in such a fraught atmosphere between the main parties. There will be intense and increasing pressure on Mr Netanyahu to take a decisive turn towards a military solution to his security dilemmas, by sending troops into Palestinian areas to arrest Hamas suspects, or into southern Lebanon against Hizbollah or pro-Syrian resistance forces. But last week's fiasco, in which 11 Israeli troops died, perfectly illustrates the risks involved and has led to surprisingly widespread calls on Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon.

This episode demonstrates how polarised Israeli opinion remains on the peace process. Opinion polls regularly show a majority of its citizens in favour of a peace based on Palestinian statehood. But a majority is also deeply alienated from Mr Arafat because of his ambivalence and ineffectiveness over security. The danger is that Mr Netanyahu's hardliners would provoke a spiral of resistance and confrontation which would play into the hands of Hamas in their competition with Mr Arafat, whose policy of sitting it out until the Israeli leader's departure is also highly destabilising.

The least Ms Albright should do is seek to stop such a deterioration. She deserves support from the European Union states which bear most of the cost of the peace process. In these dangerous circumstances, the Europeans should revive the involvement which was decided upon at the Dublin EU Council last October. All the responsibility should not be left with the United States to stop the drift towards confrontation.