No one expects much from the emergency summit in Egypt. The only point of agreement among all involved – the Palestinian and Israeli antagonists, the mediators of the host country, the United Staes, Jordan, the United Nations and the European Union – is that expectations, if any, should be low.

The pessimism is warranted; it is difficult to imagine a meeting convening under less promising conditions. Before departing for the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheik on Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak went on television to charge Palestinian leaders with using the blood of their own people to gain political advantage. Palestinian leaders began their quest for peace by accusing Israel of being more interested in flexing its military muscle than in negotiation. Even the mediators are unable to remain neutral: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak opened the summit by pointing the finger at Israeli aggression; U.S. State Department officials have made it quite clear they see Mr. Arafat as either unable or unwilling to control rioters.

The answer to the immediate question – why bother? – is obvious. Violence as a way to settle political differences is always unacceptable; allowing this particular violence to continue is unthinkable. The terrorist attack upon the USS Cole at port in Yemen, gunfire across the usually peaceful Israeli-Jordanian border, the holding of Israeli hostages by Hezbollah in Lebanon, Russia’s insistence that it have a seat at the peace table – all the ingredients are present for a wider conflict, regional and beyond.

Despite, or perhaps because of, the ugly circumstances in which this summit convenes, there is reason for small hope. One of the strange ironies of peacemaking in the Middle East is that the most violent outbreaks can be followed by progress.

The most notable example of this was in October 1996. Four days of rioting had left 70 dead, leaders on both sides were trading the familiar accusations. President Clinton brought Mr. Arafat and then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu together for an emergency summit and, although there was no breakthrough, the two sides did begin talking again. Three months later the Palestinian and Israeli leaders signed an agreement on Israeli withdrawal from settlements in the West Bank city of Hebron and the peace process, thought dead, was revived.

The current situation is more perilous. The loss of life has been greater, both sides have the blood of even more appalling atrocities on their hands and the stakes are higher. Before the 1996 summit, the 3-year-old peace process begun in Oslo was stalled. This time, Israel and the Palestinians were tantalizingly close to a land-for-peace deal; even the enormously emotional issue of joint control over religious sites seemed just a few weeks ago to be within reach. Now, the foundation for trust is near collapse as Israelis see in Mr. Arafat a leader who simply does not want peace and Palestinians in Mr. Barak a leader who only wants the kind of peace that comes from overwhelming military might.

As the leaders gather in Egypt, even the most fundamental prerequisite for peace – a cease-fire with a disengagement of Israeli troops and Palestinian security forces – seems a remote possibility, the actual resumption of negotiations on Palestinian sovereignty a sheer impossibility. First, Palestinian leaders insist, there must be an international inquiry into the violence of the last two weeks. Israeli leaders insist upon a U.S.-led investigation. It is a small point of disagreement, but its resolution, under the current circumstances, may exceed expectations.