The search for peace in the Middle East should be America's first priority

A more graphic illustration could scarcely be found of the urgent need to re-engage the Middle East peace process than yesterday's slaughter in Galilee and Jerusalem. Coming on top of the suicide bombing at the Hebrew University last week, the attacks and their aftermath spelt out the price that Israel and the Palestinians are paying for the near two-year impasse in talks.

While condemning the bus attack in Galilee, the Palestinian Authority blamed Israel's policy of mass detentions and home demolitions for fuelling the violence. Israeli soldiers, meanwhile, were conducting house-to-house searches in Nablus, looking for explosives and would-be suicide bombers. If the Palestinian authorities cannot curb the violence, Israel argues, it has to do the job for them.

Hamas, the militant Palestinian organisation, admitted responsibility for the bus bomb, saying that it was in further revenge for the Israeli air-raid that killed the group's military commander, Salah Shahada, and 14 others last month. The Israelis said that, under these circumstances, planned talks with Palestinian officials about the easing of restrictions on Palestinians within the West Bank – set for later this week – would be postponed.

While yesterday's Galilee attack, the Hebrew University bomb and the killing of Shahada have made headlines, hardly a day passes without Israeli-Palestinian violence occurring somewhere, at some level. Any glimmer of hope is rapidly extinguished.

The most promising recent development was the report that Western diplomats were within an ace of securing a truce and a scaling-down of the Israeli troop presence in the West Bank, acting on an initiative of the Palestinians. Among the signatories to the truce were said to be two militant Palestinian groups, with a third – Hamas, no less – said to be considering signing up. Then Israel launched the raid that killed its commander.

The truce initiative was already at an end when it was reported as an example of what might have been. It showed, none the less, that the gloom might not be all-encompassing. It demonstrated, first, that a movement exists among the Palestinians to reduce violence, not just around Mr Arafat, but within at least some militant groups. It showed, secondly and contrary to the prevailing impression, that outside diplomatic efforts had not ended with the failure of the last US effort, although they had been scaled back and conducted in secret. And it showed, thirdly, that outside involvement is crucial for even the smallest progress towards peace; without it, there will be no end to the violence.

One way or another, this means re-engagement by America, probably with backing from Europe and perhaps with revived interest from Egypt or Saudi Arabia – whose peace plan earlier this year has never been completely rejected. It is regrettable, therefore, that the Bush administration has not made the depth of its concern more public, nor leant more heavily on Israel in order to look beyond the cycle of vengeance and recognise the need for mutual Israeli and Palestinian security. Mr Bush said yesterday, from the start of his holiday at his parents' house in Maine, that he was "distressed" by the new killings, but he uttered not a word about the need for Israel to show restraint or to resume talks.

It is doubly regrettable that, as the US prepares to commemorate the first anniversary of 11 September, its international focus should be so exclusively on averting a threat from Iraq rather than on doing its utmost to halt the Israeli-Palestinian bloodshed.