Israel's Prime Minister, Mr Ariel Sharon, appeared at first glance yesterday to be the main political casualty of the complex diplomatic manoeuvring that finally saw his foreign minister, Mr Shimon Peres, meet the Palestinian leader, Mr Yasser Arafat.
Mr Sharon had twice cancelled the meeting over the last fortnight, although he had been under enormous pressure from the US to allow it to go ahead.
His dictum was that there should be no such meeting until there had been 48 hours free of violence.
But he had to abandon even that: an Israeli settler was killed in an ambush on the West Bank just the day before yesterday's talks.
Eight months into office, Mr Sharon is at his lowest point yet. He has failed to fulfil his promise to bring security by ending the Palestinian violence and shows no sign of having a solution.
He is under attack from members of his cabinet even further to the right of him for allowing Mr Peres to meet Mr Arafat. Mr Binyamin Netanyahu, the likeliest successor should Mr Sharon fall, has been more vocal than usual in his criticism.
Mr Sharon's biggest misjudgment has been in relations with the US. He has been painfully slow to realise the extent to which US foreign policy towards the Middle East has changed in the aftermath of the New York and Washington attacks.
Both the US President, Mr George Bush, and the Secretary of State, Mr Colin Powell, first politely asked Mr Sharon to cool tensions in the Middle East to allow them to build an international coalition that would include Arab states.
When Mr Sharon instead sent Israeli forces into Palestinian authority cities and twice refused Mr Peres permission to meet Mr Arafat, the frequency of calls from Mr Bush and Mr Powell increased. The tone too changed.
Mr Sharon picked the wrong country to be obstinate with. The US provides Israel with $840m in civilian aid a year. Israel could live without that. It would have trouble though without the $1.98 bn a year it receives in military aid.
The Israeli press has not yet reflected the level of US unhappiness with Mr Sharon. The Israeli foreign ministry is also in denial, at least in public. An Israeli diplomat yesterday played down the extent of the rift.
"There are times when things may not be in sync between two close friends," he admitted, but in the long run there was no danger of the US substantially shifting its loyalties. He added that the US had to understand that Mr Sharon "is not in a position to say that because Osama bin Laden hits New York, he can say attacks by Palestinians do not matter. He can't."
Although Mr Sharon in the end had to buckle under US pressure and allow Mr Peres to meet Mr Arafat, it does not mean he is now going to be compliant. As for Mr Arafat, he is desperate to be on the US side this time round, having so disastrously allied himself with Saddam Hussein in the Gulf war.
In the longer run, Mr Sharon can put the US on the defensive too, demanding that the anti-Israeli groups such as Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad all be placed on Mr Bush's list of terrorist organisations.
They were noticeably absent from the list of 27 organisations that had their assets frozen last Monday.
But it will be harder than before. Arab countries will argue that Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbullah are not global terrorists like bin Laden but part of a nationalist movement fighting against occupation.
Mr Bush will be more prepared to listen to Arab opinion than he was before September 11th.
