Opening direct talks with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) at this juncture in the Arab-Israeli peace negotiations could benefit Israel's short- and long-term interests and provide the peace process with renewed momentum. The United States should encourage such a move and in return bring pressure to bear on the PLO to demonstrate more flexibility. Excluding the PLO formally from past direct talks may have given Israel some room for political maneuverability and some gains in establishing the peace negotiating parameters. The growing strength of the Palestinian Islamic fundamentalists (Hamas), however, the perplexing direction that Israeli-Palestinian bilateral negotiations have taken, and the changing of administrations in Washington all raise a question as to whether Israel's interests and the prospects for peace are not better served through direct negotiations with the PLO.

As the Israeli and Palestinian representatives meet this month for another round of negotiations, they should take a much harder look at their people's inter-disbursement on the ground and examine how future demographic developments might affect their relations. This analysis will clearly indicate that only coexistence under separate political authority offers hope for a solution. Here is why:

As Israel this month celebrates the 25th anniversary of a united Jerusalem, the Bush administration should look anew at the Jerusalem "experiment" and its impact on Israeli-Palestinian relations, and utilize it as a catalyst for a breakthrough in the peace negotiations.

Israel's announced expulsion of 12 Palestinians accused of inciting riots and violence in the occupied territories raises legal, moral, and political questions. What law could conceivably justify the expulsion of a person from his homeland? True, the Shamir government is under severe pressure to placate settlers in the territories who demand stern measures against the Palestinians for the stabbing or shooting of settlers.

Following Israel and Syria's rejection of President Bush's compromise proposal to convene a regional peace conference, a reassessment of the U.S. Middle East strategy and role is critical at this juncture. To break the impasse, the U.S. must develop not only a new stategy but advance a dramatic and comprehensive peace plan of its own that meets the minimum national requirements of the conflicting parties.

When the Middle East peace conference finally convenes, there may not be a Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) representative at the negotiating table. It is not the finest hour in the PLO's long and turbulent history, but it is not a defeat either.

There is no issue in Israel as highly charged emotionally and politically as the future status of Jerusalem. By addressing the question of Jerusalem in the context of the peace process first, not last, the United States could help alleviate Israel's concerns regarding its most critical national requirement.

WITH or without linkage to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Gulf war has galvanized the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and placed it in the forefront of the international diplomatic effort led by the United States. Moreover, for the Arab states, which seem more disposed to peace than ever before, Palestinians' right to a homeland has become central to all Arab policy toward Israel.

ALTHOUGH the Iraqi military defeat has reversed Saddam Hussein's aggression against Kuwait, it has left the Middle East in a state of flux – ripe for either a diplomatic breakthrough for peace or renewed hostilities and violence. For this reason, the United States should immediately pursue a postwar strategy together with its Arab coalition partners and Israel to build a new equilibrium of power and thus pave the way for peace.