The Taoiseach was restrained yesterday when he pointed out that, while the talks process in the North gave the political parties an opportunity to articulate their views, this was "not a substitute for constructive engagement and compromise with the positions of others". What has occurred during the past months to bring the whole delicate edifice - built so patiently - to the verge of collapse, is a strengthening of the mind set that created the divisions in the first place: a refusal to recognise that an opponent has a valid point of view or to visualise any possible agreement that does not meet certain preset conditions.
Can anyone imagine, for example, that the Rev Ian Paisley is serious about talks when he repeats, as he did on Tuesday, "that all terrorist weapons, either held by the IRA or by so called loyalist paramilitaries, must be handed over, full stop"? Leaving aside fact that in the 1970s, his own views and actions in relation to loyalist paramilitarism were, to say the least, encouraging, does he believe that his words now will lead to the conclusion he calls for?
A great deal of effort has been spent by the two governments in trying to find a way in which legitimate nationalist and unionist concern about the arms issue can be dealt with provisionally so as to allow confidence to develop in other areas involved in the talks. Like Mr Netanyahu in Israel, however, Dr Paisley seems to be more interested in maintaining the perilous status quo for the sake of an illusory short term gain than in laying the foundations of a lasting peace. There is a similarly risky instinct at work in Mr David Trimble's rejection of the proposal by the two governments of a "fourth strand" to deal with decommissioning on the grounds that there was no guarantee" of its effectiveness. Just what kind of guarantee could exist on this - or, indeed, any other aspect of the talks is far from clear.
None of this exonerates the failure of the IRA to reinstate its cease fire, though Dr Paisley and Mr Trimble would be less than the astute politicians they are if they did not see a connection between the signals they have been sending out with their own unflagging insistence and the apparent impasse in the debate among republicans on ending violence for good. The years during which leadership consisted of holding firm inflexibly, have atrophied common sense on all sides now that something better than conflict and a divided community is on the agenda.
The unionists - as Dr Paisley, for his part, made brutally clear can block the political process; so can Sinn Fein and the IRA, as their actions have demonstrated. But the peace process as such, represented by the underlying demand in both communities for no more killing and destruction, is alive and provides the frame within which the politicians must all work. No one, quite rightly, is willing to make the move that leads to a formal collapse though without taking the necessary step to prevent it.
How long that can last is another matter, as the general pessimism about peace could change to a belief that a return to violence is inevitable. It will be small comfort to the political leaders who have stuck resolutely to their unveering positions to blame the obduracy of their opponents. What is happening now is not politics but collective lunacy.