Most conflicts simply defer the political solutions needed to underpin peace. The cost of delay can be counted in millions of civilian lives.
THE greater tragedy of the rising civilian death toll in the Middle East is that it is not the exception to the global rule. The conflict is not even the most deadly, although its wider consequences may be the most dangerous. The world's inability to agree on the need for a ceasefire, let alone on a credible plan, points to the reason Israel launched its offensive in southern Lebanon in the first place. A UN force has been there since 1978. It has proved irrelevant to the 2004 UN resolution 1559, which requires Hezbollah, a listed terrorist group, to be disarmed and for the Lebanese army to assume control of the south of the country. Hezbollah, aided by Syria and Iran, has acquired large numbers of rockets that can hit targets deep inside Israel. Hezbollah did fire the first shot and has launched about 100 rockets a day, so Israel has a right to defend itself. Even so, its tactics and judgements about what it hopes to achieve with aerial bombing that has claimed hundreds of Lebanese lives, most of them civilians, must be questioned. The killing of at least 54 civilians, including 37 children, in the village of Qana has caused international outrage and tested the understanding of the US — but still it blocks a Security Council call for a ceasefire.
In almost every conflict, one or another permanent Security Council member abuses its power of veto to serve its own agenda, leaving the UN marginalised until the killing has subsided. In Rwanda, the toll was a million lives. In Congo, a UN force of 17,600 is supervising the first multi-party elections in 40 years, but only after a war that killed millions, most of them civilians. In Sudan's Darfur province, the rising toll of civilian lives has exceeded 400,000 and millions more are caught in a humanitarian disaster. These human tragedies, as well as those in Lebanon, Israel and Gaza, flow from the failure of world powers to reform the UN and make it work, instead of undermining its authority with unilateral actions. Repeated refusals to give the UN the powers and resources it needs to carry out its charter make a mockery of international commitments to peace and the rule of law. In its place, the law of the jungle prevails, which leaves every nation more vulnerable.
While the outpourings of anti-Semitism will reinforce Israel's belief that it is fighting for its existence, the hatred being sown across the Middle East will extend by several generations the threat to the Jewish state and Western nations that are seen as indifferent to civilian deaths (a civilian toll wasn't even recorded in Iraq). It is important to note that Israel, unlike Hezbollah, does not deliberately target civilians and has expressed regret at their deaths, which it blames on Hezbollah's use of civilians as a human shield. Israel has eased its bombardment to allow civilians to flee the conflict. But having opted for an aerial assault rather than more precise ground attacks, Israel still bears responsibility for civilian deaths under international law. Regard for law and human life should be defining points of difference between the actions of states and terrorists.
It is possible, indeed consistent, to be concerned for Israel, for the lives of all civilians and for international law and order all at once. Israel has agreed to a peacekeeping force in Lebanon, although regrettably not to an immediate ceasefire. The international community must seize this opportunity, however slight, by swiftly assembling a force that is able to end Hezbollah's threat in Lebanon. The war on terrorism cannot be won by unilateral military action — the evidence from Iraq and Lebanon, past and present, is of extremism feeding off human suffering.
The Orwellian satire of "peace through war" in 1984 is uncomfortably close to reality in 2006. Today's wars will be ended, rather than paused, only when world powers stop paying lip service to peace and consistently support multilateral diplomacy and observance of international law as the basis for security. World leaders' lamenting of human tragedy and calls for peace are empty unless they commit their energy and resources, including peacekeeping forces, to ending conflicts as they begin. It should never be forgotten that war represents political failure. Civilians invariably pay the highest price for that failure.

The failure of the American-sponsored Middle East peace plan could push Israelis and Palestinians over the edge of a cliff. As a result of the devastating suicide bus bombing in Jerusalem on Tuesday, that cliff seems to be getting closer by the hour. Yesterday, an Israeli helicopter gunship killed a top leader of Hamas, the terrorist group that carried out the bus attack, leading Hamas and Islamic Jihad to declare that their seven-week-old cease-fire with Israel was over. Israeli troops moved into Nablus, Hamas rockets were fired into Israel, and militants were calling for the resignation and self-exile of the Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas.

If the peace process — and Mr. Abbas's government — is to survive, Washington needs to redouble its efforts, and both Mr. Abbas and Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, must realize that blaming the other will not suffice. Mr. Abbas had been hoping that the cease-fire would permit him to escape the difficult step of confronting Hamas and other radical groups. But these groups have only one goal — the destruction of the Jewish state — and need to be dealt with accordingly.

That said, Israel's assassination of one of Hamas's leaders seems counterproductive. Mr. Abbas and his security chief, Muhammad Dahlan, were clearly shaken by the terrorist attack in Jerusalem, and they had vowed to pursue the perpetrators. By taking pre-emptive action, the Israelis not only gave Hamas an excuse to rouse its faithful to more violence, but they also undermined Mr. Abbas's plans and leadership.

We acknowledge that the situation is not simple. The Palestinians asked for 24 hours to act, and the Israelis agreed to wait. Nothing happened. Still, it is far from clear what would have been lost by giving the Palestinians more time. It is true that Mr. Abbas and Mr. Dahlan have been weak-kneed in keeping commitments under the peace plan, known as the road map. But the Israelis have also failed to carry out their commitments on ending settlement activity. Both sides need to act now.

Mr. Sharon must realize that there is no alternative to Mr. Abbas, who is committed to a peaceful two-state solution. If Mr. Abbas is forced from power, it will probably be awhile before anyone else will step forward. That could be the end of the road map — and the road — for quite some time.

Israel maintains a consistently tough line. Perhaps the Israelis are too rigid, incapable of bending to the needs of others and are unwilling to tread new paths. After all was it not the killing of the Hamas leader which led to the suicide attacks? The Israelis continue to skirt around problems, by-passing them, circumlocating them, but never touching the problem that exists. They need to stay in control of events, not continually respond to them. Their callous indifference outrages and saddens me. They have to start facing up to their responsibilities if peace is to be achieved. What is Israel but a nation talking and doing nothing. They have to stop kidding themselves and come to grips with what is ailing the peace process - they cannot continue down the road of tit for tat responses otherwise it will escalate things beyond belief and it could spark an uncontrollable powder keg.

Will they be able to resolve the problems that remain, considering the circumstances?. There will be an upsurge in Hamas activity and more sporadic incidents will occur. Hamas are buoyed up by a sense of impending change, They will continue their campaign of violence and how Israel deals with this violence will continue to affect the process.

The Israelis will need to move with extreme caution. There are Jews whose fundamentalism is too rigid to accept the peace process just as Hamas cannot accept. I ache for what is happening and what is about to come. When I recall what I recorded concerning the table, I now begin to understand many things. I look with sadness upon this land, so much has been achieved, yet so much bleeding flesh remains. I feel the agony of our limitations. I look into the world beyond and feel the pain and anguish for so many. Killing and more killing. Will they get too exhausted to kill each other any more? Can they reach peace?

Both sides go beyond morals, pity and all reason. It is most stark and tragic, but how do we change it? I have an overwhelming sense of the reality and fragility of the peace process. Somehow I am caught within its vortex, looking in and knowing. Seeing so much, watching and the knowledge pains me. It goes beyond concept and intellect, beyond what analysis knows or imagines. I see beyond the phenomenal and contingent world to the eternal and non-contingent.

The land is only one of the sacrifices that will be asked of the Jews. And each sacrifice to come, each pain, each troubled outcome will eventually make them stronger but their learning is full of blood, and more blood . Until they move forward in their acceptance, discord will remain. and many more stones will be placed upon graves.

As soon as the new Middle East peace initiative was announced, it was clear that violence by its opponents would follow. Less clear was whether those who have backed the road map would have the political courage to withstand the assault.

The deadliest blows so far have come from Palestinian terrorists. Yesterday, a Hamas suicide bomber killed at least 16 people and wounded nearly 100 on a rush-hour bus in central Jerusalem.

But the gravest political damage is being done by Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, whose reflexive military responses to terror threatens to undermine the authority of Mahmoud Abbas, the moderate new Palestinian prime minister. Ignoring strong pleas from Washington, Mr. Sharon has now twice ordered Israeli forces to rocket cars carrying suspected Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip.

Challenging the new Palestinian leadership to take over security responsibility for Gaza is one of the first concrete tests of the road map. Sending in Israeli forces as if nothing had changed needlessly damages the credibility of Mr. Abbas and of the whole Bush peace plan. If it is not evident to Mr. Sharon by now that military reprisals alone can never bring Israel security from suicide bombers, the White House must do all it can to help him understand.

Nobody expects Israel to tolerate terror against its people. But terror can be more effectively rooted out if responsible Palestinian leaders like Mr. Abbas are strengthened, not undermined. It is easy to see why Hamas would like to make Mr. Abbas look irrelevant. But Israel should be doing all it can to strengthen his hand because in the long run that is in Israel's own interest.

For years, Israelis rightly complained about Yasir Arafat's equivocating attitude toward terrorism. The Bush administration has acted on those complaints and worked hard to marginalize Mr. Arafat. As a result, a far more credible figure, Mr. Abbas, is now the Palestinian prime minister. Meeting with Mr. Bush and Mr. Sharon in Jordan last week, Mr. Abbas bravely uttered the unambiguous words Mr. Arafat seemed chronically unable to pronounce. He renounced "terror against the Israelis wherever they may be," a phrase that included soldiers and settlers. Such forthright language was encouraging, though language alone will not be enough. Now Mr. Abbas must be given a chance to follow up his words with effective police action.

The obvious place for him to start is Gaza, where Hamas is based and where the Palestinian Authority's security forces are strongest. To build a Palestinian political consensus against terror, Mr. Abbas needs to show his people that his conciliatory words have brought a change in Israeli behavior. Regrettably, Mr. Sharon's latest actions demonstrate just the opposite.

A day after he stunned Israelis and Palestinians by describing his nation's long hold on the West Bank and Gaza Strip as an "occupation", Ariel Sharon backtracked, referring to Israel's "control over disputed lands".

The Israeli Prime Minister's office issued a clarification on Tuesday after he was criticised by furious right-wing MPs for using a term many believe could buttress Palestinian claims to the land seized by Israel in 1967.

The dispute over language came as the fragile new peace process appeared to struggle to make headway. Israeli and Palestinian leaders postponed a meeting planned for yesterday ahead of talks with President George Bush in Jordan next week.

With the US urging the two sides to push forward on the "road map" peace plan, Mr Sharon has faced continued criticism from right-wing politicians for persuading his cabinet to endorse it on Sunday and for his comments defending it.

"You may not like the word, but what's happening is occupation," Mr Sharon told angry MPs from his Likud party on Monday. And occupation, he said, repeating the word throughout his comments, "is a terrible thing" for both Israelis and Palestinians.

On Tuesday Mr Sharon said he had been referring to Israel's rule over Palestinians, not the occupied territories themselves.

Palestinian officials had described Mr Sharon's original words as a watershed for a man long viewed as unlikely to cede territory or forge peace.

The Palestinian Information Minister, Nabil Amr, and other officials voiced concern, however, about emerging details of Israel's objections to the peace blueprint that Mr Sharon's cabinet insisted on attaching before it voted to endorse the plan.

Israel has demanded a "complete cessation of terror" before it begins implementing the plan. Palestinian officials say this would hold the process hostage to anyone with a bomb or gun.

The demand is among 14 amendments, leaked to the media on Tuesday, that the Israeli cabinet is seeking to the plan.

However, the Israelis say they should not be subject to similar conditions.

"The road map will not state that Israel must halt violence, incitement against the Palestinians," the document says.

Other minimum demands include a requirement that the Palestinians waive any right of return to Israel for refugees, and the dismantling of Hamas and other "terrorist" organisations.

Israel also demands a bar on any discussion within the plan of the fate of established Jewish settlements or Jerusalem until final-status talks towards the end of the process, and acceptance before talks begin that Israel will control the borders and other aspects of a provisional Palestinian state.

Crucially, Israel objects to the concept of the sides implementing commitments in parallel. Instead it wants "performance benchmarks", and the right to decide if these have been reached.

The Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas, said yesterday that Israel should drop its reservations and embrace the peace plan as a historic opportunity.

THE NEXT STEPS
• Ariel Sharon and Mahmoud Abbas to meet as early as today.
• Israel's US ambassador, Daniel Ayalon, meets George Bush today.
• Bush to meet Arab leaders in Egypt to promote the plan.
• A summit with Bush, Sharon and Abbas in Jordan next Wednesday.

The Israeli and Palestinian prime ministers planned to hold preliminary talks today ahead of a meeting with President George W Bush next week to push forward a US-backed Middle East peace plan.

Israeli diplomatic sources confirmed the meeting between Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and Israel's Ariel Sharon. Earlier, the White House announced both men would meet Bush in Jordan when he visits Egypt, Jordan and Qatar from June 2 to 5.

In Washington, a Bush administration official said two senior officials in charge of Middle East policy would leave for the Middle East to prepare for Bush's meetings.

Assistant Secretary of State William Burns and Elliott Abrams, the National Security Council director responsible for the Middle East, would go first to Cairo, then Amman, Riyadh and Jerusalem, the official said.

In his first Israeli newspaper interview since taking office, Abbas said he would not settle for a temporary ceasefire by militants in a 32-month-old uprising for Palestinian statehood.
He demanded "absolute calm".

In continued violence early today, a 20-year-old Palestinian militant was shot and killed by Israeli soldiers in the West Bank city of Jenin, Palestinian medics and military sources said.

Yesterday, Palestinian witnesses and security sources said Israeli forces shot dead a member of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat's Force 17 security unit yesterday as he sat in his car. Israeli security officials denied any connection with the slaying in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

In the interview published yesterday in Israel's daily Haaretz, Abbas urged Israelis to shed their fears over the US-backed "road map" to peace.

"This is a historic opportunity to return to a track of normalcy," Abbas said. "Follow the map and don't waste time over details."

In their second meeting since Abbas took office in April, Sharon will focus on ways the Palestinian premier can reduce violence against Israelis so Israel can restore normal life to Palestinian towns, Israel radio said.

The road map outlines reciprocal steps leading to an end to violence and the creation of a Palestinian state by 2005. The Palestinians embraced it. Israel accepted it after Washington agreed to address most of its 14 reservations.

In an interview with Reuters, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, founder of the Islamic militant group Hamas, said the road map was "a trick" and Washington could not be trusted.

Islamic militants have claimed responsibility for most Israeli civilian deaths during the uprising.

Yassin said Hamas might suspend attacks inside Israel if Israel ended a military crackdown on Palestinians and released some 7000 prisoners, a proposal Israel has rejected.