SHATTERED HOPE.

ONE SIDE SENDS SUICIDE BOMBERS; THE OTHER ANSWERS WITH HELICOPTER ATTACKS. ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS ARE LOCKED AGAIN IN MORTAL COMBAT. YET JUST LAST YEAR THEY WERE CLOSER TO PEACE THAN AT ANY TIME IN DECADES. HOW DID THEY MISS THEIR CHANCE?

AGAIN AND AGAIN IN A YEAR of bloodshed, the pendulum of violence has ticked from one side to the other. With each swing, someone dies.

On one day, the eerie back-and-forth might begin with young Palestinians, willing to die as martyrs for their dream of a free Palestine. Carefully, they tape pipe bombs and high explosives to their bodies and slip into busy Israeli streets. Outside a crowded disco, a bomber kills himself and 21 others, many of them teens. At a pizza restaurant, another suicide bomber kills 15 Israeli civilians.

A few hours or days later, the pendulum swings back. A black Israeli attack helicopter, its rotors chugging in the heated air, rises over the dry landscape, holds steady for an instant, and then fires its missiles in a long streak of hissing smoke. Whether the target is an office building, a farmhouse in Bethlehem, or a lone car on a deserted road at midnight, the results are the same: The Palestinian militants who have been marked for extermination end up dead, and sometimes innocent bystanders die too.

It was not supposed to be this way. Last year at about this time, the Israelis and Palestinians were said to be close to signing a peace pact, the culmination of seven years of painful negotiations. Then the talks suddenly broke down. Since last September, violence has claimed the lives of more than 550 Palestinians and more than 130 Israelis.

Each new attack leads to oaths of vengeance--from Palestinian militants bent on continuing the terror campaign, and from the Israeli Army, which vows to continue targeted killings.

A WRONG TURN

THE UNITED STATES HAS BLAMED PALESTINIAN leader Yasir Arafat for the failure. One widely accepted story goes like this: Last summer, the two sides met with President Clinton at Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland. At that meeting, Ehud Barak, who was then Israel's Prime Minister, offered Arafat a deal too good to refuse. But, the story continues, Arafat turned down the Israeli plan, and then "pushed the button" and chose the path of violence.

Recently, however, new details have emerged, suggesting that the version blaming Arafat for the failure of the peace talks was largely wrong. Diplomats and officials now say the reality was far more complex. "It is a terrible myth that Arafat and only Arafat caused this catastrophic failure," says Terje Roed-Larsen, the United Nations special envoy in Jerusalem. "All three parties made mistakes, and in such complex negotiations, everyone is bound to. But no one is solely to blame."

This new analysis suggests that a breakdown was not as inevitable as it now appears. It shows how the leaders were often driven by public-opinion polls at home to take positions that made achieving a peace more difficult, and then often misjudged how the other side would react. The analysis also reveals how the story that emerged, blaming Arafat and the Palestinians, helped harden positions in Israel against continuing negotiations, thus further dimming hopes for peace.

Yet these same diplomats and experts say that neither side can win the current struggle. Eventually, both will have to come back to peace talks and base them on the rough outlines that were under discussion last year.

How close were the two sides to peace? Days before the peace process was severely damaged by Palestinian riots last September, Barak and Arafat held an unusually congenial dinner meeting in Barak's private residence. At one point during the dinner, Barak even called President Clinton and excitedly told the President that he and Arafat were going to strike a peace bargain. Within earshot of the Palestinian leader, Barak theatrically announced, "I'm going to be the partner of this man."

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES 

BUT THE DINNER WAS ALSO A CLASSIC example of how misunderstandings and communication failures can lead to unintended consequences. Arafat says that during the dinner, he huddled with Barak on the balcony, imploring him to block a planned visit by Ariel Sharon, then leader of Israel's major opposition party, to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, a place of tremendous religious significance.

To Jews, the Temple Mount is sacred as the site of the temple of Herod the Great, of which only a supporting wall, the Western Wall, remains. Muslims revere the site as al-Haram al-Sharif (Holy Sanctuary), where Muhammad is believed to have ascended into heaven.

Arafat felt that Sharon's visit would be a provocation. But Barak's government did not act to prevent the visit, perceiving it as an internal Israeli political matter involving Sharon's jockeying for power against a rival in his party.

That was a major miscalculation. Sharon's visit under heavy guard, intended to demonstrate Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount, set off angry Palestinian demonstrations. The Israelis used lethal force to put them down. The cycle of violence started.

Playing upon Israeli fears of violence and arguing that the Palestinians weren't interested in peace, Sharon ran for Prime Minister against Barak and won in February of this year.

Since then, the U.S. has continued efforts to bring the two sides together, although President George W. Bush says his administration will be less active than Clinton's was in the peace effort. This spring, former U.S. Senator George Mitchell mapped out a plan for both sides to re-enter peace negotiations. In June, CIA Director George Tenet managed to negotiate a cease-fire, based on Mitchell's recommendations. The agreement briefly reduced violence, then fell apart. By late August, new negotiations to restore the cease-fire had been planned, and a return to the peace table seemed possible.

The Camp David talks in the summer of 2000 were intended to hammer out a final peace agreement, after seven years of negotiating between the two sides that had begun in Oslo, Norway, in 1993. The goal was to solve problems left over from the Six-Day War of 1967, when Israel attacked its Arab neighbors and captured the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, and the West bank, home of 1.5 million Palestinians (see "Mideast 101: The Anatomy of a Conflict," above).

The core issues of the current struggle: Palestinians insist that Israel must turn over sufficient land in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to allow the creation of a Palestinian state. Some Israelis fear that such a state in their midst could threaten Israel's security or even lead to its destruction.

Over the years, the conflict has sprouted layer upon layer of complexity. Last summer, negotiators argued endlessly over how much territory in the West Bank would be given to Palestinians; over the division of Jerusalem (claimed by Israel as its capital and by the Palestinians as the capital of their would-be nation); over whether Palestinian refugees would be allowed to return to the homes they fled during the wars; over the future of Jewish settlements built through the years in territory the Palestinians claim as their own; and over what security measures could protect Israel from violence.

HIGH HOPES, BROKEN TRUST

AS THE CAMP DAVID TALKS BEGAN, THERE was extraordinary optimism that they would produce a historic agreement. But it now seems clear that Palestinians came to the talks feeling pressured by Barak, who needed a peace deal to bolster his re-election hopes, and by Clinton who, in the waning days of his presidency, hoped that a Mideast peace would brighten his legacy.

The Palestinians said too that the Americans did not seem to take seriously the pressures of the Palestinian public and the Muslim world on Arafat. Like Barak, Arafat went to Camp David dogged by plummeting domestic approval ratings.

In addition, there was the background to the talks: mutual distrust that seven years of peace talks had not undone. Right-wing Israeli politicians complained that the Palestinian leadership was not educating its people for peace, not collecting illegal weapons, and not acting to reduce incitement against Israel.

The Palestinians, for their part, lost faith in Israeli promises to transfer land to them as the dates for doing so were routinely delayed and Jewish settlements were expanded in territory the Palestinians believe to be theirs.

How poorly did things go between Barak and Arafat at Camp David? According to a Palestinian observer, during one dinner, with Clinton sitting between the two leaders, Barak spent the evening ignoring Arafat and talking with Clinton's daughter, Chelsea.

But critics also point out that the Palestinians failed to come up with counterproposals to what the Israelis were offering. Bob Malley, Clinton's chief Mideast adviser at Camp David, wrote in The New York Times in mid-July that the Palestinian passivity frustrated American mediators "almost to the point of despair."

SETTING THE CLOCK BACK?

DESPITE THE PROBLEMS, HOWEVER, progress was made at Camp David. The Israelis offered concessions on turning over territory in Jerusalem that they had never made before. And the Palestinians, in turn, assented to Israeli rule over key Jewish neighborhoods and religious sites, and agreed to accept several Jewish settlements they had opposed for years.

But in the aftermath of Camp David, critics say Clinton made a blunder, praising Barak and saying Arafat had not made an equivalent effort.

"Clinton left us to our own devices after he started the blame game," says Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel's Foreign Minister at the time. "He was trying to give Barak a boost, knowing he had political problems going home empty-handed. But in doing so, he created problems with the other side."

Yet peace negotiations did not die then, or even in September when the Palestinian riots broke out following Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. In fact, few Israelis, Palestinians, or Americans realize how much diplomatic activity continued after the Camp David meeting. All the negotiating came to a head last January in Taba, Egypt, where Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met again, with an American peace plan on the table. Unknown to anyone in the public, those negotiations came as close to achieving peace as any diplomatic effort has done in more than 30 years.

But time ran out. Although much progress had been made, the negotiations were finally suspended by Israel because elections were imminent. In short order, Clinton left office, and Barak lost his position as Prime Minister to Sharon. Amid mounting violence, some Israelis and Palestinians have come to believe that the clock has been set back decades.

Distrust on both sides has skyrocketed, with many Israelis now believing that Arafat has been completely discredited as a "peace partner." At the same time, many Palestinians fear that far-right parties in Sharon's coalition government will push the extremist view that Palestinians should be "transferred" to neighboring Arab lands.

Yet relatively few Israelis, Palestinians, or outside observers believe that there can be a military solution to the conflict. Thus, the two sides will eventually have to return to serious talks.

And in fact, those who played key roles in the negotiations still believe a peace built on the near miss last year is possible.

"Clinton took us on a futuristic voyage," says Saeb Erekat, a senior Palestinian negotiator. "We have seen the endgame. It's just a matter of time."

Says Gilad Sher, a senior Israeli negotiator: "I still think that peace is doable, feasible, and reasonable. That's the tragedy, because the basis of the agreement is lying there, in arm's reach."

MIDEAST 101: THE ANATOMY OF A CONFLICT

KEY PLAYERS

ARIEL SHARON, Prime Minister of Israel

Long considered a hard-liner, Sharon was a general in Israel's military and has held leading positions in its government. While Minister of Defense, he was held indirectly responsible by his own government for a 1982 massacre of Palestinian refugees. Sharon, who now heads the conservative Likud Party, opposes compromise with the Palestinians and has vowed to maintain Israeli control over all of Jerusalem. Sharon's visit last September to the Temple Mount, a site holy to both Muslims and Jews, triggered the latest round of violence.

EHUD BARAK, former Prime Minister of Israel

The most decorated soldier in Israeli history, Barak was elected Prime Minister in 1999, after promising to make peace his top priority. In peace talks, Barak offered to give Palestinians control over parts of Jerusalem--something no other Israeli leader had done. But as violence mounted last fall, his popularity plummeted and he was voted out of office. He has since denounced Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat (see below) as a "thug."

YASIR ARAFAT, Chairman, Palestinian Authority 

As leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Arafat first fought Israel through guerrilla warfare and terrorism in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1988, Arafat publicly renounced terrorism on behalf of the PLO, but he has been criticized for failing to stop terrorist attacks by other Palestinian groups. He now heads the Palestinian Authority, the governing body aimed at establishing an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, parts of which have been relinquished by Israel.

HAMAS (Arabic acronym for "Islamic Resistance Movement")

Hamas, a militant group centered in Gaza and the West Bank, does not accept Israel's right to exist and opposes negotiations with Israel. In its ongoing guerrilla war, Hamas has claimed responsibility for suicide bombings and terrorist attacks that have killed hundreds of Israelis.

UNITED STATES

The U.S. has long played a role in mediating Israeli-Palestinian talks, though the Bush administration has reduced American involvement.

PEACE EFFORTS

OSLO ACCORDS. This historic agreement, signed by the PLO and israel in 1993, was secretly negotiated in and around Oslo, Norway. The agreement, which the United States helped broker, established the concept of land for peace, and marked the first time that Israel and the Palestinians formally recognized each other's existence. As a beginning step, Israel granted the Palestinians limited self-rule in Jericho and Gaza. A five-year timetable to negotiate further steps was set up to allow both sides to gain mutual confidence gradually. The toughest issues, such as control over Jerusalem and the return of refugees (see next column), were reserved for later, when the two sides would have more faith in one another. Deadlines for those incremental steps were repeatedly missed, however, and the hoped-for trust was never achieved.

MITCHELL REPORT. An inquiry led by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell into the Israeli-Palestinian violence called for a cease-fire followed by a "cooling-off period" and confidence-building measures, such as Palestinian arrests of terrorists and a freeze on Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank and Gaza. The report, released this year, also offered a framework for restarting the peace talks. Though both sides agreed to the cease-fire, each has repeatedly violated it.

KEY ISSUES

PALESTINIAN STATEHOOD. To create a homeland for the Jewish people, the UN voted in 1947 to divide Palestine between Jews and Arabs. The split prompted an attack by six Arab nations when Israel declared its independence in 1948. With the signing of the Oslo Accords, Palestinian leadership accepted Israel's existence and the idea that a future Palestinian state would emerge only from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But agreement on where lines should be drawn on the map has been elusive.

JERUSALEM. This city is holy to Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians claim it as their capital.

REFUGEES. During the 1948 war, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled the embattled land. Today, millions of those refugees and their descendants say they have a right to return. Israel fears that their return would threaten its security and its Jewish identity.

SECURITY AND TERRORISM. Israel has maintained military control over parts of the West Bank and Gaza. It has imposed a series of checkpoints and sometimes closed its borders to Palestinians, contending that the measures are necessary in the face of suicide bombings and other Palestinian attacks.

SETTLEMENTS. There are about 270 Jewish settlements with roughly 180,000 Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Palestinians see the settlements as Israel's excuse for keeping a military presence in their regions. The settlers say they have a right to live anywhere in the historic land of Israel.

WATER. Palestinians object to Israel's total control over water--a valuable resource in an arid land--in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

ISRAEL Population: 5.8 million Square miles: 8,019 average annual income: $20,700

WEST BANK Population: 2 million Square miles: 2,262 Average annual income: $3,733

GAZA STRIP Population: 1.1 million Square miles: 139 Average annual income: $2,981

FOCUS: Insiders Say Mistakes on All Sides Scuttled the Mideast Peace Process

TEACHING OBJECTIVES

To help students understand how misjudgments and mistrust on all sides helped disable a Mideast peace process that had been seven years in the making.

Discussion Questions:

* The U.S. has long served as a mediator between Israel and the Palestinians. Should Americans care about the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation?

* Why do you believe the U.S. became involved in the peace process in the first place? Why didn't the two sides just sit down and negotiate between themselves?

* Why do you believe President Bush has decided to tone down U.S. involvement in the Mideast peace process?

CLASSROOM STRATEGIES

Critical Thinking: The article says results of Israeli and Palestinian opinion polls pushed both sides to take positions that made achieving peace more difficult. What does this suggest about how average Palestinians and Israelis view the peace process? Are they willing to recognize their adversaries as equal partners in the search for peace? Are they ready to compromise to achieve peace? Did each side fear political disaster if their negotiations at Camp David appeared to appease their opponents? What impact did the political goals of Prime Minister Barak and President Clinton have on the peace talks?

Ask students to consider how a symbolic gesture aggravated already tense Israeli-Palestinian relations. Why did Israelis and Palestinians view Ariel Sharon's visit to what Jews call the Temple Mount and Palestinians call the Noble Sanctuary so differently? Note that the article refers to the "cycle of violence" that commenced following Sharon's visit. What is a cycle of violence? Write "politics of the last bombing"--a phrase sometimes heard in Northern Ireland--on the board. Can a violent act trigger a violent answer, which triggers another, and so on?

Finally, call attention to the "widely accepted story"--putting all blame on Arafat--that diplomats and other officials dispute. Whatever students' view of the Middle East conflict, can they see how an account that represents only part of the truth becomes the conventional wisdom, and in turn helps to harden public attitudes?

With reporting by DEBORAH SONTAG, bureau chief for The New York Times in Jerusalem.