Danger in the Mideast

The Israelis and Palestinians are on the verge of a diplomatic breakdown. The American government fell short of its recent effort to revive stalled negotiations by the familiar spark of an appeal to talk by diplomat Dennis Ross. But that does not mean that the United States has no further relevance.

It is time to consider moving from the emphasis on process to becoming a more active definer and interpreter of the broad terms that the two Mideast sides have already agreed to pursue. Bill Clinton has shrunk from this more active strategy. But his earlier course has lost pulse. If he will not become engaged more deeply in the Mideast, he must lower the whole American regional profile -- an invitation to major eruptions.

Such a decision requires close attention to both Middle East parties. Toward the Palestinians it means demanding that Arafat abandon his equivocation toward terrorism. He can no longer plead, even implicitly, that Israeli provocations justify a violent response. Nothing explains that away in a negotiation aimed at building peace between neighbors. Other political levers remain available, including a rollback of existing Arab ties with Israel which is doubtful to be productive.

A decision to engage more actively could produce friction with Israel and with Israel's American supporters who have a different view of how the United States should discharge its profound moral obligations to the Jewish state.

But that argument should not tiptoe past the issue and avoid political risks, it should proceed with firmness and care. American obligations do not run to a particular Israeli government's policy of annexation or to a specific Israeli tactic of preemption but to the country's enduring security. In the dangerous circumstances now settling upon the region, this is where the focus of American thinking on Israel and the Palestinians must turn.

-- The Washington Post