WASHINGTON - True to its word, the United States has undertaken a robust effort to breathe life into the Mideast peace process.

Despite the political risks, President Bush has put his personal prestige on the line - and in some jeopardy - in order to get the long-stalled process moving. Will this bold initiative be sufficient to reverse the negative momentum that has gathered such forceover the past 32 months of bitter, vengeful killing? Or will the forces perpetuating this seemingly intractable conflict once again dash all hopes for a comprehensive resolution?

There are some reasons for optimism.

Topping the list, of course, is the president's personal involvement. That involvement,moreover, takes place against the backdrop of the swift military victory in Iraq that haschanged the political calculus throughout the region.

 The accession of Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, to a Palestinian leadership position is a clear victory for U.S. interests and offers additional grounds for hope.

Thus far, he appears to be a much more credible negotiating partner, injecting new vigor and integrity into the Palestinian camp. Moreover, the cycle of Palestinian suicide bombings and Israeli military responses has graphically underscored the bankruptcy of current policies attempting to achieve political goals through terror or to establish security through harshly repressive military measures.

And finally, there is the "road map," a product of the United States, the European Union, Russia and the U.N. secretary-general, outlining a process to achieve a Palestinian state by 2005 in the context of real security for Israel. The road map is not perfect. No plan is perfect. But it is a plan, and it is a plan that the Palestinians have accepted and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, with strong U.S. encouragement, has persuaded his government to give grudging acquiescence.

The plan, in a business-like way, identifies issues that need to be resolved and presents a step-by-step program for dealing with them. But the unique - and almost certainly vital - element in the road map is its requirement for parallel rather than sequential actions by Israelis and Palestinians.

The insistence in prior proposals that a prerequisite to negotiations must be a cessation of violence from the Palestinian side has been a virtual guarantee that there would, in fact, be no negotiations. Violence cannot be completely stifled, as recent events have underscored, and to require its total cessation as a precondition is simply to put control of the process in the hands of the radicals opposed to any settlement. The United States is, therefore, wisely pressing the parties to embrace the road map as the point of departure.

To be sure, Mr. Abbas must develop and inaugurate a true strategy for dealing with Palestinian terrorism.

Occasional token arrests and raids will not suffice. But the ice under him is very thin. It is obvious that the best anti-terrorism strategy, however well-conceived and wellintentioned, will not succeed unless his decimated security apparatus is rebuilt with Israeli cooperation and American assistance.

Additionally, he must be able to show skeptical Palestinians that he is not simply a tool of the Americans or Israelis but that his efforts at cooperation are bringing immediate, tangible benefits, including an Israeli pullback from specified areas and a meaningful settlement freeze, not just the promise of pie in some distant sky. Otherwise, the ice under him most certainly will break.

Navigating these first parallel steps is critical, and for the past 2 1/2 years, all efforts have foundered at just this point. If the initial moves can be successfully negotiated, each succeeding step is likely to be somewhat easier and mutual confidence can begin to grow.

Difficult as some of the issues in the road map are, and vague though their treatment in the road map sometimes is, together they represent the parameters of a settlement that is more clearly visible than ever before in the bleak history of this tragic conflict.

The administration is rightly pursuing a settlement at this time, and the president is right to be putting his prestige on the line. The outcome, given the proper proportions of perseverance, skill and toughness, could be historic. The alternative - continuing bloodshed, spreading hatred and escalating instability - warrant the investment and justify the political risks.

 

Brent Scowcroft, president of the Forum for International Policy, was national security adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush.