The parties to the Middle East peace talks in Maryland are now facing a clear choice of seizing the opportunity to move closer to a settlement that would end 20 months of deadlock, or of stepping back from the momentum of peace. Over the past week, President Clinton has invested both his hopes and his energies in securing an agreement, at the expense of campaigning for the Democrats in the crucial midterm elections. In the early hours of yesterday morning, direct intervention from the White House averted a threatened Israeli walk out as Mr Clinton returned yet again to the Wye River Plantation to push the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators closer to accepting an interim agreement.
The Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Benjamin Netanyahu, has been under pressure from hardliners at home not to give ground. But he has tried to make a virtue of his concessions to pressure from home by complaining that the Palestinians are negotiating in bad faith and trying to avoid concrete commitments to fighting terrorism.
He has said he wants action, not simply declarations, from the Palestinian President, Mr Yasser Arafat, and has accused the Palestinian negotiators of giving "words" and "hot air" instead of "concrete things". But Mr Netanyahu was given to "hot air" too and was less than diplomatic as he declared: "We are not suckers." And he has insisted that the Palestinians meet a series of security conditions before Israel agrees to withdraw from a further 13 per cent of the occupied the West Bank.
Israeli allegations of Palestinian weakness on security have been a sore point throughout the negotiations. The Palestinians say they are doing their best to stop attacks on Israelis, but like any administration faced with the problem of terrorism, they know they cannot guarantee 100 per cent success.
For his part, no matter how hard he pushes Mr Arafat for guarantees, the Israeli Prime Minister can give no guarantees himself that any agreement will receive complete backing from those who are supposed to be his own supporters. Three of his ministers have warned that he cannot count on cabinet support for any accord, and 13 ministers and Likud deputies have called on him to submit any proposed accord to the party for approval before final ratification.
Indeed, Mr Netanyahu has been quick to insist on Palestinian obligations but slow to recall Israel's own obligations under the Oslo accords. No agreement was in sight yesterday on the so-called "unilateral actions" - the building of new Jewish settlements in occupied areas - and Mr Arafat's declared intention to proclaim a state when the Oslo interim peace accords expire next May.
Was Mr Netanyahu's order for his delegates to pack their bags a mere tactic to score points at home or a serious threat aimed at eliciting concessions? Whatever his intentions, his behaviour has underlined the truth that all parties to the talks have other agendas and priorities when it comes to their domestic politics. Mr Clinton is anticipating an impeachment inquiry; Mr Netanyahu faces a vote of no confidence in the Knesset on Monday; and Mr Arafat returns home to an increasingly hostile and sceptical people and the aftermath of another bombing by his militant opponents in Hamas.
An agreement will enhance Mr Clinton's reputation at home, and may strengthen Mr Netanyahu's hand within his cabinet. But Mr Arafat may well return a sad man, worried that he will be seen by the militants on his doorstep as having conceded too much and gained too little.