The first question to ask is: why was this attack perpetrated now, and not earlier?

I believe that this is because of a profound lack of engagement and interest in Israeli-Palestinian affairs by the United States government.

Bush's strategy was to hold back on sending high level delegations to Israel, because he feared a loss of prestige of America's negotiators if they went in and the violence continued. This is what happened to Clinton; after the historic Camp David accords, the violence flared up again and Clinton's negotiating power was diminished.

Bush erred in the other direction, unrealistically abstaining from negotiation "until there was an end to violence on both sides." Other Arab states called for his involvement... now we see that their warnings were correct, and we have been too late. Many, many people have died because of Bush's "forbearance" and his regard for "prestige."

Of course, any Bush action or change of policy towards the Middle East will now be interpreted as a reaction to the terrorists -- either a capitulation or a retaliation.

The traditional response to such an attack would be a military response, like our bombing of Lybia after the Lockerbie, Scotland disaster. However, this would pose several risks.

First, violent response to violence escalates conflict, increases support for terrorism, and plays into terrorist hands.

The immediate granting of concessions to the Palestinians, or to the Israelis, for that matter, would be seen similarly. Forceful support of Israeli stances, such as the negation of the Oslo accords and the recent "cooling down" ceasefire plan, would play into terrorist hands as described above. But, so would forceful support of Palestinian stances encourage terrorists to bomb in order to gain victories or concessions.

I see that the only solution then is to intensify negotiations, placing all possible resources on the ground in Israel. Powell and Bush should spend a long time there- weeks and months must be devoted to the negotiations, as the Clinton team did.

Alternative negotiators and plans, such as the introduction of UN monitoring troops and/or EU peacekeeping monitors should also be considered.

We cannot, as a nation, lose any face by responding to this tragedy by intensely negotiating. In fact, after this tragedy, Bush would damage American prestige more by not ramping up the negotiation effort.

UK Reaction

British Prime Minister Tony Blair was quick to seize on the opportunity afforded by the WTC and Pentagon atrocities. Speaking at the TUC conference he said "This mass terrorism is the new evil in our world today. It is perpetrated by fanatics who are utterly indifferent to the sanctity of human life and we, the democracies of this world, are going to have to come together to fight it together and eradicate this evil completely from our world."

The UK government is making clear to America that its policy of isolationism is untenable, and appears to be saying “Here we are, available as your allies and ready to help”. The subtext, beneath the platitudes and expressions of regret, is that America must commit itself more fully to the world and world affairs, and that the UK is one of the very few nations it can trust in this endeavour. Britain will make available all military personal and bases, and share all intelligence fully with America, doubtless in return for favours.

The UK often takes advantage of disastrous times internationally. Although the USA flirts with Pacific Rim nations such as China and Japan, the UK is well aware that when the chips are down, old friends are called upon first of all, and it knows it can extract valuable geopolitical advantages from American help, as it did frequently during WWII and the years of the Cold War.