In a region as volatile as the Middle East, almost any incident can set off a violent reaction. The Israeli attempt to seize six Palestinian prisoners held in a Jericho jail shortly after British guards had been evacuated led yesterday to gunbattles, kidnappings and violence across the West Bank and Gaza. Foreign teachers and aid workers were seized at gunpoint, mobs burnt British Council offices, European Union buildings were ransacked and militants threatened the lives of any Westerners they happened to find.

For months political tensions have been running high, a mirror of increasing extremism and the frustration of the unemployed. Two factors, however, have made the region especially tense: the approaching Israeli elections and the political deadlock that has followed the Hamas victory in the Palestinian territories.

The pretext for the unacceptable violence remains murky. Since 2002 the prison in Jericho has been holding six Palestinians convicted of masterminding the assassination in Jerusalem of Rehavam Zeevi, the Israeli Tourism Minister, in 2001. Under a complicated deal negotiated at the time, the men — who include the head of the militant Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Ahmad Saadat — have been guarded by a handful of British and American monitors.

For a reason still unclear, Britain believed that its three guards were in imminent danger, and ordered their withdrawal, a decision communicated to both Israeli and Palestinian authorities. Israel, already angered by the release in recent weeks of 46 other militants, believed that the men were to be let out, and reacted quickly. Soon after the British had left, a large force concentrated outside the compound, battered down the gates and eventually apprehended Saadat.

The action was a clear signal both to Israeli voters and the Palestinians by Ehud Olmert, the acting Israeli Prime Minister. In two weeks, he faces the electorate as acting head of the new Kadima party. He has promised an eventual withdrawal from most of the West Bank. But to prevent this sensible move being portrayed as a betrayal by Likud and opponents on the Right, he has been talking tough about security. On Monday he visited the largest settlement in the West Bank and insisted that it, and three others, would be included in Israel’s final borders, which he intends to set in 2010 — unilaterally, if necessary.

The dilemma over how to respond lies at the heart of the paralysis that has overtaken the Palestinian Author-ity since the elections in January. Mahmoud Abbas, the President, has failed to persuade Hamas to recognise Israel or negotiate. The West has threatened to cut off all funding unless it does (though the Austrian EU presidency is still hoping to find a way of continuing funding by avoiding Hamas). And the lawlessness and factional infighting have fuelled the despair in Gaza, already suffering from the repeated closure of the only border crossing with Israel.

Mr Abbas says that the Palestinians are ready to continue guarding the six men, now in Israeli hands — though his authority obviously counts for little. There must be questions, however, about the timing of the monitors’ departure. Surely they could have stayed in place until after an election campaign that is already stoking partisan passions. In peace, as in conflict, timing is all.