US: The former US national security adviser, Mr Zbigniew Brzezinski, yesterday denounced US policy in the Middle East as "incoherent" and called on the Bush administration to spell out publicly its own view of what a comprehensive peace deal would involve.
Speaking on CNN after the Secretary of State, Mr Colin Powell, had again insisted he had no intention in the near future of travelling to the region, Mr Brzezinski articulated what has become an increasingly significant criticism in policy circles that the US engagement in the crisis is entirely reactive and security-focused.
Senators like the former vice-presidential candidate, Mr Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, and Mr Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, have been calling for the President to become more directly engaged - although Mr Bush has protested that he spent most of his Easter holiday on the phone to regional and world leaders on the issue.
But Mr Bush has yet to talk directly to the Palestinian leader, Mr Yasser Arafat, and has not been in direct contact with the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Ariel Sharon in recent days, perhaps out of concern that his calls for restraint would be defied by both leaders.
Mr Bush's public comments have also been deeply equivocal: on the one hand he acknowledges Israel's right to defend itself, but he hedges this with notes of caution about retaliation and the need to keep "a pathway to peace open"; on the other hand, he repeats his calls to Mr Arafat to do more to stop the violence. His only concession to Mr Arafat has been his refusal to label him a terrorist.
Mr Bush has not echoed the UN Security Council's call for Israel to withdraw from Ramallah and the West Bank, although Mr Powell is reported to have urged Mr Sharon to consider carefully the consequences of his military actions and of isolating Mr Arafat. He made clear the US opposition to the deportation of the Palestinian leader.
On Monday the administration took one option off the table, ruling out sending US troops to enforce any peace settlement.
At the Pentagon, the Secretary of Defence, Mr Don Rumsfeld, contributed to the rhetoric by blaming Iraq, Iran and Syria, which he said were encouraging attacks by the Palestinians.
Commentators like Mr Brzezinski argue that there is no possibility of the Palestinians laying down arms unless they see a real prospect of agreement on the "final status" issues of Palestinian statehood, the joint administration of Jerusalem and ending the plight of refugees.
While many people believe that a deal broadly acceptable to both sides would be relatively straightforward to construct, they agree that the Israelis and Palestinians are currently incapable of negotiating. So, the argument goes, the US, in consultation with the Europeans and Arab countries, should set out such a framework and present it to both sides as a non-negotiable package. Only the US has the "degree of credibility" to do this, Mr Brzezinski argues.
The strategy is risky. Mr Bush could alienate the powerful Jewish lobby in the US by putting demands on Israel that fail in the end. But a policy of "more of the same", others argue, is a recipe for continuing violence destabilising the alliance against terrorism. It could eventually lead to an increased targeting of US personnel and businesses in the Middle East.