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.

Unlike past US-Israeli discords which were readily patched up, there is a crisis of confidence brewing between the Bush administration and the Shamir government over Israel's request for a $10 billion loan guarantee. Ironically, the discord between the two governments has less to do with the loan itself than with what it represents.

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.

In announcing his acceptance of President Bush's compromise proposal to convene a Middle East conference, President Hafez Assad of Syria reaffirmed his country's position that notwithstanding the limited role of the United Nations, the peace negotiation will have to be based on UN Resolution 242. That is, the principle of trading peace for territory remains the centerpiece for any future settlement of the Israeli-Syrian conflict. The question is how Israel's security needs can be reconciled with Syria's claims of sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

A shortsighted and a premature cease-fire that preserved a brutal despot – Saddam Hussein – in power is behind the Kurdish tragedy today. Unfortunately, America stood idly watching with cruel indifference the destruction of the Kurdish people.

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.

President Bush's decision to use force to reverse Iraqi occupation of Kuwait and his reliance on the United Nations resolutions to carry out that mandate have introduced a new balance of power in the Middle East and stimulated the emergence of new alliances. Middle East regional security and a future solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict will be dramatically affected by these developments.