President Chirac's explosion in anger against the way he was hemmed in by Israeli security personnel yesterday as he walked through east Jerusalem was characteristic of the man. If it helps to dramatise and alert the world to the danger of an explosion in the Middle East it will have served a very useful purpose.
Senior European Union and French sources have been quite explicit about the possibility during the course of this presidential visit. One of them was quoted in Damascus as saying: "If things don't change quickly, there's going to be a real explosion in the occupied territories, worse than the one which cost 75 lives last month. We have got to tell Netanyahu that. The peace process is not dead, but it is in a very, very serious state." Mr Chirac himself referred to another source of instability when he spoke about "the explosive potential of poorly managed international relations". This is taken to be an indirect criticism of the US. It has merit within the context of the virtual collapse of the peace process, its entanglement with the US elections because of President Clinton's need not to antagonise the pro-Israeli lobby there, and the on-off news about the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in the last few days. Mr Chirac went on, in an address to a group of Israeli students, to spell out his policy on the peace process, saying that a recognised Palestinian state would provide Israel with a true partner. Only such a partner would be capable of making, and adhering to the commitments that are necessary for the security of Israel".
This has been taken by several Israeli spokesmen and representative figures to exclude a French or European role as a mediator or co-sponsor of the Middle East peace process in this, its most dangerous hour. Yet, give or take some nuances, it is a fair summary of the common EU position as well as of the French one.
Mr Netanyahu's government will have to come to terms with this reality if they want to continue to enjoy the favourable aid and trade relations Israel has built up with European states. They have been predicated on Israel's commitment to the positions agreed in Oslo, which had the implicit commitment to state sovereignty for Palestine and shared sovereignty over Jerusalem. The explicit unravelling of those commitments - an undeniable part of Mr Netanyahu's formula of "peace for peace as against the previous Labour government's "land for peace" - jeopardises the whole process because it puts in question the solemn undertaking of the Israeli state to an international agreement. Mr Netayahu will have to make his choice between these two formulae now that he is well over the initial breathing period in office after the elections last June. It is as well that he should do so fully conscious of the international consequences, specifically the consequences relating to Europe, of his decision.
On this occasion, Mr Chirac's bluntness can serve a useful purpose for his European partners (and, indeed, his US ones) as well as for the interests of France. It is reminiscent of his warnings shortly after he was elected last year of the need to take decisive action in Bosnia. He has been at pains to assert the complementary of these roles - an important point, given the decision of the informal Dublin European Council on October 5th to appoint a special envoy and to dispatch the Tanaiste, Mr Spring, on an immediate visit, which will be followed up next month by an EU Troika trip to see whether the peace process can be rescued or revived.
Mr Netanyahu apologised yesterday for the treatment given to his guest and publicly acknowledged the value of the message Mr Chirac brought from prolonged discussions with President Assad of Syria. One has to be hopeful rather than confident that Mr Netanyahu's remarks sprang from a belated realisation that the time available to head off an explosion may be short indeed.