The only glimmer of light to emerge on another dark day in the Middle East was the statement yesterday from the Israeli government to the effect that the killing of eight students at the Mercaz Harav religious seminary would not derail peace talks with the Palestinians.

History points to Israel taking retaliatory military action against Hamas-controlled Gaza so it was perhaps significant that the initial public reaction from Tel Aviv also struck a conciliatory note, with the pledge to keep talking. But to whom? The terror attack on the seminary has thrown that question into sharper focus.

Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, persuaded Mahmoud Abbas, who rules over the larger part of the would-be Palestinian state in the West Bank, to reopen the American-sponsored negotiations after the Israeli incursions into Gaza, which had killed more than 100 Palestinians. These talks are once again poised on the brink. The unrestrained glee among young men and boys in Gaza that greeted news of the attack was distasteful in the extreme and of grave concern, given the demonstration of such hardened, visceral attitudes among youths. Hamas and the Hizbollah militant groups represent an Islamic insurgency that reaches beyond Gaza.

It is probably no coincidence that the previously-unknown group that claimed to be behind the killings took its name from the senior Hizbollah leader killed in a car bomb last month. Nor is it likely to be insignificant that the seminary where the killings took place inspired the nationalistic Jewish settlement movement in the Palestine territories. Should Israel decide to invade Gaza with the aim of destroying Hamas, Mr Abbas would find it extremely difficult to talk to Tel Aviv, despite his Fatah party and Hamas being sworn enemies.

Should Israel seek to negotiate directly or indirectly with Hamas, the risk would be that Mr Abbas and Fatah, the west's preferred partners in talks, would be sidelined. There is a view that talking to Hamas would finish Mr Abbas. That would augur very badly for future prospects of peace. But what is the alternative to negotiations, and possibly widening their scope to include Hamas? Several former senior figures in Israel's military and intelligence services have suggested some kind of accommodation with Hamas. Precedents have been set elsewhere: in Iraq, where an understanding of sorts has been reached with the Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al Sadr, and in Afghanistan, where overtures have been made to the tribal warlords to weaken the influence of the Taliban.

History dictates that terrorist attacks and military retaliation solve nothing. They entrench attitudes and add to the blood-letting. A concerted international diplomatic push is urgently required to mediate between the various parties. Don't we have a Middle East envoy keen to improve his reputation and credibility on the international stage by pursuing just that goal? Where, exactly, is Tony Blair?