With the U.S.-brokered cease-fire failing and hopes for the resumption of meaningful negotiations with Palestinian leaders dim, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak declared a “timeout” in Middle East peace efforts Sunday. Although the use of sports terms is overdone in politics, this is a particularly appropriate application that, with some lucky bounces, could benefit all sides and all players.

The situation is dire, but Mr. Barak did not call this timeout as an act of desperation, to gasp for breath or to bandage an injury. His timeout is that of a way savvy coach – having seen the opposition in action, he’s now revising strategy and tactics.

Unlike real coaches, though, Mr. Barak faces more than one opponent and the timeout gives his government the much-needed opportunity to deal with them individually. The most immediate threat is from the right-wing political forces within Israel, which could bring the Barak government down if allowed to remain the disgruntled opposition with nothing at stake. By suspending peace talks to consult with the hawk Ariel Sharon, Mr. Barak may be able to form a coalition government that provides a semblance of continuity. Nothing within Israel’s control would be as damaging to the peace process as an Israeli government in constant turmoil and turnover.

The timeout also gives Palestinian leaders a chance to assess their leadership. Yasser Arafat has been everywhere during the last three weeks of bloodshed, and yet, at the same time, nowhere. He claims to be leader of a nation and of a formidable armed force, yet he also claims he is powerless to stop stone-throwing teen-agers. Persistent doubts about his diplomacy skills were underscored by his conduct this last weekend. He gave a relatively moderate speech at a conference of Arab leaders, then he responded to Mr. Barak’s timeout announcement by saying anyone who did not want to see a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital could just “go to hell.” As a guerrilla leader, Mr. Arafat is without peer. His skills as a governor have yet to be demonstrated and may, in fact, be nonexistent.

Arab leaders could use time to reflect and regroup. The conference at Cairo was promising in that the peacemakers of Egypt and Jordan were prominent while the terrorists of Libya and Iraq were rebuffed. The meeting ended with a joint condemnation of Israel for its handling or the Palestinian uprising, but stopped at merely proposing a temporary freeze on new ties with Israel and an agreement to only consider new financial aid packages to the Palestinians. Clearly, there is no stomach for holy war and little confidence in current Palestinian leadership.

The current violence in Israel largely is the result of recent high expectations going unfulfilled. When the late summer Camp David summit came close to breakthrough yet ended with no measurable progress and the mid-September deadline for the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state came and went, pent-up tensions exploded. It is remarkable, however, that despite the 120-plus deaths, despite atrocities on both sides, the point of no return has not yet been passed. The break afforded by Mr. Barak’s suspension of negotiations, if used wisely, could give all involved time to realize that.