Higher flames

From a comfortable distance, the violence scorching the Middle East looks awfully like the violence that has come before, the violence that has tragically come to represent the region. The televised scenes of anger, mourning and rubble are a nightmarish rerun.

Certainly, the pattern is familiar. It started with a specific affront – in this case the Oct. 28 visit by Israeli right-wing opposition leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount, one of the holiest of places for both Jews and Arabs, at a time when passions already were inflamed over control and access to holy sites. Demonstrations led to rock-throwing which led to armed troops, tanks, helicopter gunships, the worldwide broadcast of the shooting of an innocent 12-year-old Palestinian boy and now the taking of hostages.

In the past, there always has been the assumption that revulsion on both sides eventually would lead to another cease fire, that after the burials and rubble-clearing, the Middle East peace process would somehow, despite the setback, pick up and lurch forward.

This time it is different, the flames are burning hotter and higher. There is the very real possibility they will leave behind no hope for peace. For the first time, Israeli Palestinians are rising up against their own government, the unrest is striking at the very heart of Israeli communities.

Even more alarming is that, for the first time, speculation that Palestinian Authority leader Yasir Arafat has lost his ability to lead appears to be becoming reality. Palestinians openly and grimly joke about his ineffectiveness. Rumors of widespread corruption among Arafat’s lieutenants are now accepted as truth. Israel has the military force to impose peace, but a negotiated peace – the only kind that lasts – requires two sides to negotiate. There is reason to question whether the Palestinians will come out of this with anyone to send to the table.

It is impossible to know for now if it is within Mr. Arafat’s power to rein in the violence from his side; that he has made no credible attempt suggests not. It is, however, also possible that he has at least one more peace-making card to play, and that makes the bold decision by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to postpone expanded military action vitally important. It buys Mr. Arafat a little time; it demonstrates that Israel has a leader willing to take an enormously unpopular political stand in the interest of a higher cause.

No nation outside of the Middle East has a higher stake than the United States. To many in the Arab world, the interests of this county and of Israel are one. The consequences of total collapse of the peace process will have profound effect upon American security interests.

The United States’ actions so far in this latest of eruptions have been sound. Secretary of State Madeline Albright has deftly balanced calling on Mr. Arafat to exhibit leadership with prodding Israel to take real steps toward Palestinian representation in government. The U.S. correctly abstained from voting on a meaningless United Nations resolution after working effectively to remove the most offensive anti-Israel language. President Clinton put his own reputation on the line by suggesting an emergency summit meeting in Cairo; the reluctance of Egypt to commit is a strong indication of how high the stakes – and the tension between the Arab world and the West – are. Events of the next few days will determine much more than what leads the nightly news.