Israel's prime minister, Mr Ehud Barak's, determination to pursue peace talks at Camp David marks him out as a politician bent on controversial action rather than woolly compromise. He enters US-backed talks with the Palestinian leader, Mr Yasser Arafat, having lost the support of three of his coalition parties and having seen the defection of more than one third of the ministers from this cabinet, but seems relatively unperturbed at the prospect.
Mr Barak, it would appear, is reverting to type as a former commando chief, after a frustrating year in which he attempted to rule with the broadest possible coalition in the Knesset. Having won the premiership with a resounding 56 per cent of the vote over the incumbent Mr Binyamin Netanyahu, Mr Barak invited three pro-Netanyahu parties into his cabinet. It was precisely these three parties - the ultra-orthodox Sephardic party Shas, the National Religious Party, which represents Jewish settlers in the Palestinian territories and the Russian-language right-wing party of Mr Natan Sharansky - which pulled the rug on Mr Barak at the weekend.
The main reason, ostensibly at least, was that Mr Barak refused to inform the parties of his bargaining stance in advance of the Camp David summit. He would have been most unwise to reveal his hand at this stage but the nature of Israeli politics is fractious in the extreme and his decision to disregard the views of the three parties was a courageous one.
There are problems too within Mr Barak's own One Israel grouping. Not the least of this has been the marginalising by Mr Barak of his foreign minister, Mr David Levy, to the extent that Mr Levy has refused to accompany his prime minister to Camp David.
Mr Barak's political difficulties at home might, in a curious way, strengthen his hand at the negotiating table in that it will remind his interlocutors that he must look over his shoulder at gathering opposition at home. Some Arab observers have gone so far as to suggest that he may have deliberately engineered the political crisis to achieve this result.
This appears unlikely. It is more reasonable to suggest that if the crisis was planned, it was done by the coalition parties in order to prevent Mr Barak making territorial concessions to the Palestinians.
Despite Mr Barak's difficulties, US sources have been making confident statements to the effect that a comprehensive settlement may be achieved within a week, well in advance of the September 13th deadline set by both parties. Such a result would undoubtedly crown Mr Clinton's presidency which ends in January, and perhaps boost the electoral prospects of vice president Gore.
But major hurdles will have to be overcome. These include a decision on the status of Jerusalem, the plight of Palestinian refugees and Israeli settlers as well as the geographical boundaries of any future state.
In tackling these difficulties, Mr Barak has counted on the support of the Israeli people in his bid to overcome the opposition of politicians. The latest opinion polls and his survival of the no-confidence vote in the Knesset, indicate that he may be right.