The United States has moved, not before time, to intervene more decisively in the mounting war of words between Israel and the Palestinians, as Mr Yasser Arafat has warned of a "giant explosion" in the Middle East. But there is a danger that too great an emphasis on security will impede political progress. The verbal exchanges have been accompanied by very disturbing reports of preparations for real war, including simulated Israeli re-occupations of the area controlled by the Palestinian Authority, plans for compulsory military training for Palestinian graduates and renewed rocket and air raid exchanges in southern Lebanon and northern Israel.
Mr Dennis Ross, President Clinton's special envoy, yesterday began the mediating trip he postponed after the suicide bombing atrocity in Jerusalem last month. He is reported to be carrying a package offering acceleration of final settlement talks in return for a readiness by the Israelis to ease up their pressure on Mr Arafat and a readiness by the Palestinians to sort out the security situation on the West Bank. Yesterday he made it clear that the security concerns are at the top of the US agenda.
The Palestinians may regret having built up expectations from Mr Ross's visit after he laid such emphasis on security, which looks like a partisan position. But they may have to respond to it if he, together with the Secretary of State, Ms Madelaine Albright, is to put pressure on Mr Netanyahu to re-engage with the peace process. Last night's trilateral meeting on security is ample testimony to this political fact.
It remains very difficult to fathom Mr Netanyahu's objectives. Since the Jerusalem atrocity, he has not ceased to attack the Palestinian leader and to undermine whatever basis Mr Arafat might have to reach an agreement and retain credibility with his followers. Collective punishment measures have cut off financial resources from Mr Arafat's administration, blockaded towns and stopped Palestinians once again from coming to work in Israel.
He expects Mr Arafat to act as a policeman for Israel by cracking down on the popular organisations supported by Hamas, without regard for the political consequences. Analysts ask, with good reason, whether Israel any longer regards Mr Arafat as an indispensable partner in the search for peace or whether he is being demonised again to prepare for war.
There were no international guarantees built into the Oslo accords, a fact the Israelis have emphasised on occasion to assert their autonomy from pressure by the United States or the European Union. But international concern and influence must continue to be applied in support of the peace process, especially when, as now, it looks so hopeless. The EU role needs to be built up to compensate for US support for Israel. The Clinton administration has stopped short of endorsing the idea of a Palestinian state on the grounds that it would prejudice their mediating role. But this is the clear logic of the Oslo accords, and is consistently supported by surveys of Israeli public opinion as the price of peace. Patience on all sides has been exhausted by the endless delays, prevarications and setbacks in the process. The US and the EU will need to lay down very clear markers on Israeli settlements and blockades, as well as on security issues, if substantive negotiations are to get going again.