More violence and death in the Middle East: at least 7 people were killed and 192 injured when 3 bombs exploded in a crowded mall in West Jerusalem. The Islamic militant group, Hamas, has claimed responsibility, and warns of more attacks. A report on the recent events is followed by a discussion with two veteran Mideast negotiators.

PHIL PONCE: We go now to two veteran Mideast negotiators. Edward Djerejian was ambassador in Syria and served as Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs during the Bush administration. He's currently the direction of the James Baker Institute Policy at Rice University. William Quandt served on the National Security Council during the Nixon and Carter administrations and participated in the Camp David negotiations. He's now a professor of government and foreign affairs at the University of Virginia.

Amb. Djerejian, in your opinion, is there any doubt that the bombing was connected to Madeleine Albright's trip, and that it was an attempt to in some way derail or impede it?

EDWARD DJEREJIAN, Former State Department Official: Yes. It was definitely directed to the upcoming trip by Sec. Albright to the region. These extremist groups and individuals are opposed to the peace process, certainly moving forward, and they will do everything possible--they are the enemies of peace--they'll do everything possible to sabotage that effort. But what is most serious now is that the Arab-Israeli peace process has been stalemated for many months on the Israeli-Palestinian front, to say nothing about the Israeli-Syrian-Lebanese negotiations. Nothing has occurred since 1996. And it's when there's a stalemate in the peace process when terrorist acts occur that the situation is truly jeopardized.

PHIL PONCE: Ambassador, given that stalemate, do you agree with the administration's decision to send the Secretary in any case?

EDWARD DJEREJIAN: Absolutely. I think Sec. Albright can make a difference. She's going into a very tough situation, but there have been tough situations before where Secretaries of State have been involved personally in breaking the logjams, in getting through the difficulties, and getting the peace process going. I think a very important point we have to remember as Americans is that the United States is a primary responsibility as the--the Madrid peace process--to move this process on all fronts. And certainly it's when the President of the United States and the Secretary of State are directly involved and totally involved in the negotiating process that we made progress. Bill Quandt can certainly speak to his role when Jimmy Carter was President in the Camp David Accords, President Bush and Sec. Baker in Madrid in 1991. In fact, Henry Kissinger--in the disengagements--in '74. U.S. involvement at the presidential and secretarial level in my view is essential.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Quandt, do you feel that at this point the Secretary does have that kind of direct support from the President?

WILLIAM QUANDT, Former National Security Council: Well, I think so, although it's never easy to tell about President Clinton how long he will sustain an interest and how much effort he's going to put into it. But he's saying the right things now, and his decision to send Sec. Albright back to the region is certainly a correct one. And she seems to bring--to this effort. Her speech indicated that she has ideas and is ready to really engage with the parties. And, as I said, this is not a President who's distinguished himself by his staying power on controversial issues. And the Middle East is a very controversial area for him.

PHIL PONCE: Do you think this bombing will serve to put pressure on both sides, or just pressure it so much that it will make it difficult for anything constructive to get done?

WILLIAM QUANDT: Well, the atmosphere is already terrible, and this just makes it worse, but at some point politicians have to also focus on a little bit longer horizons and think strategically. And if Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Arafat are thinking about the best interests--their people--they have to be thinking about how to get this practically comatose peace process back on track. And that can't just be driven by the emotions of the moment. That would be playing into the hands of the terrorists, the people who want this process to fail. So once the cameras has been shut off and the doors are closed, Sec. Albright really has to have a serious conversation with both of these political leaders, not about just today's events but about where they want to be a year from now, five years from now, and how to start getting there. And I think that conversation's long overdue.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Ambassador, what do you think the Secretary can realistically hope to accomplish?

EDWARD DJEREJIAN: Well, first, there has to be an effort to defuse the current crisis, really a crisis of confident between the Israelis and the Palestinian National Authority. But beyond that, it is important to think strategically. The United States has to get out of the reactive mode in its policy toward the Middle East peace process. We have to think and elaborate a strategy. The framework is there. The fundamental principles of the Madrid peace process are there. Much has been done since 1991 on all fronts.

Achievements has been accomplished, but much has to be done. The Hebron agreement, in which a Likud prime minister signed off on an aspect, an important aspect of the Oslo Accords, was a milestone that should have really been pushed forward--to final status negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. So in the first instance I think the Secretary should approach the region in strategic terms, look at our role as moving this process forward in a comprehensive setting with the Palestinians, with the Syrians, with the Lebanese, and this is very important because there's a connection between all these negotiating fronts, and the peace will not be--unless there is progress on all fronts.

So the framework is there; the strategy has to be elaborated; and I think it's important also that we get out of this facilitator mode, the mode of just bringing people together and start thinking about American ideas, American suggestions, and American proposals. Now, this is going to take political courage on the part of the American President, the American Secretary of State, to put thorough proposals because at the end of the day you get reaction from both sides, the Arab side and the Israeli side. But, again, if you look at the history of this peace process, it's only when the United States has stood tall, has put forward its positions, has made life uneasy for both sides, Arab and Israeli alike, that we've made progress. The time for that has come because we have vital interests in the Middle East.

PHIL PONCE: Do you agree with the position that the framework is there and it's simply a matter of perhaps the United States just pushing harder?

WILLIAM QUANDT: Well, I agree the framework's there, and I agree with virtually everything that Ed Djerejian said. I do think it's time to break with this incrementalist approach and to begin to concentrate on the outcome of these negotiations and to start putting forward ideas to get the parties to react to. That's what has worked in the past. There's no guarantee that it's going to work. This is a very tough problem.

One point I would add is that there is not only a sense of urgency that stems from the terrible crisis in the region--people are dying and tensions are rising--but there's also a sense of urgency that is in a sense self-imposed on the American side. President Clinton has a good shot to make his mark on Middle East peace for another year or so. In all honesty, after that time, he becomes a lame duck and nobody in the Middle East is going to take him very seriously because they, like a lot of Americans, will start thinking about who's coming along next and will it make any difference.

But right now President Clinton and Sec. Albright have their moment. They have about a year or a year and a half to really tackle this very difficult problem, but if they delay--if they take all the time in the world--if they let the agenda be set by the parties to go slowly, to wait until everything is in place, we're going to miss the chance, and it's going to be an historic loss.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Ambassador, what would you say is incumbent on the respective parties as far as what they need to do? Mr. Arafat, for example, has been called upon to really give a 100 percent effort as far as controlling security.

EDWARD DJEREJIAN: Well, he has to do that. The Palestinians have to make a total effort on combating terrorism, combating the infrastructure of terrorism, coordinating with the Israeli security services and the government fully. It's incumbent upon Arafat and the Palestinian leadership to do that.

PHIL PONCE: And what is incumbent upon the Israeli leadership?

EDWARD DJEREJIAN: On the Israel leadership I think it's very important that they look at this process as a total process where you just cannot wait upon security as the lynchpin to move forward but that peace and security have to move forward together. The talks and security measures can move forward together. I think if we get into this chicken or egg thing, that you can't have peace without security or security without peace, it becomes a pretext for not moving forward at all. The Israeli government should look hard at how it can facilitate the economic pressures on the Palestinians. There are a lot of measures that can be taken to alleviate the rather desperate economic situation there which will actually help marginalize the Palestinian extremist groups and terrorists.

PHIL PONCE: And with that, Mr. Ambassador, Mr. Quandt, I thank you both.