The opposition to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and his handling of Arab-Israeli peace negotiations is gaining in momentum in Israel. Benjamin Natanyahu, recently elected Likud leader and author of a new book, "A Place Among Nations" (Bantam), is leading the fight to topple Mr. Rabin, vowing not to surrender strategic territory, even if that means the collapse of the peace process.

The 10th round of the peace talks may prove to be the last one before the parties adjourn despairing, unless the US projects itself forcefully as a full partner and advances some concrete steps toward a solution.

Exchanging territory for peace has not always provided the basis for Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations. In fact, for more than two decades Syria has demanded Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights without offering peace in return, and Israel has sought full peace with Syria without ceding the entire Golan. Both parties have accepted the principle for exchanging territory for peace based on UN Resolution 242, but how much territory for what kind of peace remains at an impasse. Since Israel captured the Golan in 1967, both Labor and Likud-led governments have defined the Golan as strategically critical to Israeli defense.

Maintaining the separate national character of both Israel and the future Palestinian en-tity to be established in the West Bank and Gaza is critical to the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Egypt is in danger of falling into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists. Although the danger is not imminent, it is real. Islamic groups, in and outside Egypt, with the active support of Iran, view the fall of the Mubarak regime as the key to the success of the Islamic revolution.

Egypt is in danger of falling into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists, though not soon. Islamic groups in and outside Egypt, with the active support of Iran, view the fall of President Hosni Mubarak's regime as the key to the success of the Islamic revolution.

If the format for the Arab-Israeli negotiations does not change it will be only a matter of time before the whole peace process collapses. Peace will be the ultimate victim of Palestinian violence and Israeli shortsightedness. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin approached the peace process as if there is no terrorism and fought terrorism as if there is no peace process. This has not worked. The expulsion of some 400 Islamic fundamentalist Palestinians, the way the expulsion was handled, and the wave of terrorism that followed shows clearly that Mr. Rabin cannot isolate terrorism from the peace process. Rabin's insistence that there is no military option to terrorism suggests that there might be some kind of political solution. Rabin, however, has not advanced any new political initiative toward the Palestinians since he took office. Failing to do so, and in forsaking a military option to deal with terror, Rabin has simply handed Hamas a strategic victory. His policy strengthened Hamas and resolve for a continued jihad. This creates internal security havoc, demoralizes the Israelis and jeopardizes the p eace process – precisely what Hamas has aimed for.

Israel should not wait for the Palestinians to decide when and under what conditions they would resume the negotiations. The time has come for Israel to take the initiative and dramatically alter the negotiating equation.

The resumption of the Arab-Israeli peace negotiations, for the first time under the Clinton administration's auspices, and following a five-month-long suspension, presents a challenge and an opportunity for President Clinton to advance significantly the peace process toward a solution. What may come out of the new round of talks, analysts agree, will depend on (a) the readiness of the United States to persuade, push, or pressure the parties to make important concessions to produce interim agreements, and more important, (b) the ability of the US to conceptualize how a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace would look in the face of continuing regional instability. Without such an all-encompassing conception, the US will be reacting to proposals and counterproposals that reflect each participant's separate agenda.