Of course the reception that Robin Cook received on his recent visit to an Israeli settlement

Of course, the reception that Robin Cook received on his recent visit to an Israeli settlement on in East Jerusalem doesn’t augur well for a European Union role. But the Foreign Secretary set some important foundations for a realistic policy, not least by sending a clear message of principle to the Israeli government. In any case there is little in President Clinton’s record in this part of the world that suggests a strong political will. Even the need to carry the Arab world in re-creating the alliance against Saddam did not stir the administration Quite the opposite, in fact. The United States’ insistence on Iraq fulfilling a UN Resolution whilst seeming to ignore Israel’s failures in this regard alienated Arab sentiment and made the US even more dependent on its traditional friends in Israel.If America does depart the talks it will leave a vacuum Next month Tony Blair will visit Israel.

He could take this opportunity to suggest a European initiative. It might be worth trying, if only because someone has to act as mediator and there is a very limited range of candidates. There is a simple calculus always implicit in Israeli politics. When push comes to shove, the Israelis fear conflict with the United States more than they have an interest in settling the West Bank and resisting Palestinian independence. True, you would not think that from the steely rhetoric that pours out of Tel Aviv and the militancy of some elements of Israeli society. Yet it lies in every calculation every Israeli government makes.The US could still use this It could step up the diplomatic pressure It could make explicit where America disagrees with Israel.

It could add some strings to the vast aid budget that it grants to Israel, or threaten some of the “sweetheart” military deals these two old allies strike. These were the kinds of sticks that the Bush administration used to some effect in starting the peace process that is now beginning to collapse.But a President weakened by “zippergate” and a Congress facing mid-term elections are not inclined to such dramatic initiatives. For as long as this has been the case the talks have been “phoney”.So it has a lot to do with the government of Benjamin Netanyahu (which, by the way, we do not feel reflects the range of opinion and enthusiasm for peace in Israel) And Mr Netanyahu can be very, very, stubborn. But the United States need not have been, and need not be now, hopeless in the face of his defiance. The present Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, has long been determined to prevent the development of a de facto Palestinian state by limiting their control to urban enclaves.

Not the least of these is why the peace process became “phoney”?
At the heart of matters is the accord signed by Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli prime minister assassinated in 1995, which would have effectively given control of the West Bank to the Palestinians. One option is simply for us to remove ourselves from the process altogether.”

Well, the United States may try to remove itself from the peace process but abdicating its wider role and responsibilities in the Middle East is not an option. The dilemmas of American policy will persist whether they are hosting talks or not The Americans need to ask themselves some tough questions. The position of Dr Daniel was plainly comparable.In Baker v Kaye (1997) IRLR 219 a claim for damages against a doctor who had made a pre-employment assessment of a plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that although the doctor had owed the plaintiff a duty of care, there had been no breach of that duty. Whilst that conclusion was right, it should also have been based on a finding that there was no duty of care.Kate O’Hanlon, Barrister.