WHEN PRESIDENT Bush learned of the latest bus bombing in Israel, an attack that killed 11, many of them students, he again decried the use of terror to "stop any process for peace." He urged all countries in the region to "take responsibility" to fight off terrorism.

Speaking of responsibility, the Bush administration should reflect on its role -- or lack thereof -- in the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. That same day, Secretary of State Colin Powell called on Palestinians to disrupt and dismantle terrorist groups that are perpetrating the attacks with impunity. But comments like these have become empty exhortations in the grim reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

While Israel forcefully tries to defend itself against an insidious enemy, the Palestinian Authority remains inert. Its leader, Yasser Arafat, and his security forces have neither the desire nor the will to wage a counteroffensive against Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations in their midst. But that by no means excuses them from their responsibility to act against these groups to foster the true interests of the Palestinian people -- a state of their own -- and secure a peaceful end to this crisis.

The White House is clearly focused on only two initiatives -- disarming Iraq and waging a tedious yet essential war against global terrorism. In the meantime, more and more Israelis and Palestinians are dying. That won't stop until Palestinians decide that terrorism is not in their interest and Israelis trust that they mean it.

The Bush administration apparently has decided that it's not in its own interest to invest high-powered man-hours in the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, though discussions are under way this week on the U.S. billion-dollar aid package to the Jewish state.

Work on a Mideast "road map" -- a timetable for a cease-fire with negotiations on a Palestinian state to begin late next year -- isn't enough. With Israelis primed to re-elect a hawkish government and Palestinians indifferent to a change in their leadership, the dynamic of terrorism and reprisal will remain the same. The conflict is a flashpoint in the region that fuels anti-Americanism in the Arab world. That's reason enough for the United States to be vigilant in pursuing a resolution of the fighting.

Brent Scowcroft, a former national security adviser to the first President Bush, suggested last week that the administration take time now, while international weapons inspectors are in Iraq, to re-engage the Mideast parties. Mr. Scowcroft's suggestion should not be dismissed out of hand. But it would require U.S. and Arab leaders to push issues -- like a freeze on settlement construction and a Palestinian crackdown on militants -- that neither is prepared to do.

Supporters of Mr. Bush have argued that a successful challenge of Iraq, whether through weapons inspections or war, will decidedly alter the geopolitics of the region. That change, they argue, would give the Bush administration a prime opportunity to push the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the forefront of the foreign policy agenda.

But why wait until then? The Bush administration could enhance its fight against terrorism by pursuing an aggressive Mideast policy that pressures both sides to forsake the bloodletting.