Pursuing peace in the Mideast

There is no use trying to gloss over the failure of the emergency meeting at the Egyptian town of Sharm el-Sheikh. When the leaders of the United States, Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan sit down with the president of the Palestinians and the prime minister of Israel, they should be able to make some progress. Their talks collapsed, and that is a fact. The 1993 peace process may not be dead, but it is in cold storage.

There are two important points to make. The first is that the summit showed the great danger of failure. As their leaders talked, people on the streets of Gaza and other areas fought with bare hands, stones and rifles. The Mideast remains a flashpoint, where war can erupt over tiny and unpredictable events.

The other, an extension of the first, is that overall failure is not an option. Israel and the Palestinians may disagree about almost every important item on their remaining peace agendas. Hotheads in both countries may accidentally or purposely spark, and then inflame, murderous violence. But continued conflict is not an option. In the end, even Mr. Barak and Mr. Arafat realized they must work together to at least try to stop the violence.

The achievements of Mr. Arafat are real and undeniable. A worthy Nobel Peace Prize winner, he has demonstrated he is capable of making great diplomatic advances. But it is clear that the fates of Israel and the promised Palestine are linked.

The true responsibility for peace in the Middle East rests directly with the leaders of Israel and the Palestinians. Ehud Barak was elected prime minister on promises he could negotiate a reliable peace.

Mr. Arafat has pledged to lead his people to that promised land -- a real nation of Palestine. That promise can be achieved only when all the people of the Middle East are confident of a peaceful future.

-- The Bangkok Post