The current violence between Israelis and Palestinians is much the worst in four years - and clearly puts their peace process in jeopardy. It stems from a visit by the right-wing opposition leader, Mr Ariel Sharon, last Thursday to the Al Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem, a site sacred to Muslims but which also contains parts of the ancient Jewish temple.
Mr Sharon is a shrewd politician. He opposes the agreements made so far in the peace process. He was without doubt well aware of two important factors when he made his visit. He knew that Israel's prime minister, Mr Ehud Barak, was pushing for an early agreement on Jerusalem, the most important major obstacle to a final peace settlement. He knew too that his visit was likely to provoke such a violent reaction from Palestinians that it would threaten the peace process.
Mr Sharon did not arrive at the compound to provide exercise either for his physical well-being or his religious beliefs. He went there to provoke a political crisis which could scupper moves towards peace and damage Mr Barak's minority government as seriously as possible. That the Palestinians reacted violently and precisely on cue says a lot for their lack of leadership and restraint. Mr Sharon may have been the prime mover in creating the current serious unrest; but the Palestinians have played predictably into his hands, made much worse by the Israeli military's use of lethal weaponry in response.
The real target in the current situation appears to have been Mr Barak. His leadership in the fragile peace negotiations has been unquestionably courageous. The denunciations and rhodomontade of Mr Sharon and his supporters have failed to deter Mr Barak from making concessions necessary to move the negotiations forward. It would a shame if Mr Sharon's cynical stirring of tensions, together with the quite disproportionate response of the Israeli military, had the effect of destroying all hope of peace in such a crucial region.
President Clinton also sees attaining a peace agreement as a matter of urgency. Entering the final phase of his final term, he needs a major foreign policy achievement to secure his place in history. He has had successes in the peace process in Northern Ireland; but the accomplishment of a lasting agreement in the Middle East would be of greater consequence internationally. It would be paradoxical in the extreme, therefore, should the cynical actions of Mr Sharon get in the way of Mr Clinton's justifiable ambitions or the courageous moves by Mr Barak towards a settlement.
It is here that the Palestinian leader, Mr Yasser Arafat, enters the picture. Mr Sharon has gambled that Mr Arafat will not be able to control Palestinian reaction to his deliberate provocation. The longer the violence continues the more damage will be done to the peace process in general and to Mr Barak's domestic standing in particular. The violence needs to be brought to an end as quickly as possible and both Mr Arafat and Mr Barak need to play an urgent and visible part in bringing this about.