This is US Presidential election year and strategists in Israel know that. Consequently, Israeli Prime Minister Sharon can defy world opinion and not care two bits about it.

The remote control of Israel and the Jewish lobby pertaining to US foreign policy has been reflected recently in an in-depth article published in the International Herald Tribune. It refers to how Democratic Presidential nominee Senator Kerry has been forced to change track and adopt a stronger pro-Israel stance compared to a few months ago. In a paper entitled 'strengthening Israel's Security and Bolstering the US-Israel Special Relationship,' prepared by his policy advisers, Kerry attempts to re-introduce himself to Jewish voters through concessions. As opposed to last October when he referred to the illegal barrier as a "barrier to peace," this time round, it is different.

The above paper points out how Kerry has been at the forefront of the fight for Israel's security during his 19 years in the US Senate and affirms that 'his pro-Israel voting record is second to none.' In an example of political desperation, the paper goes on and -- calls for more forceful action to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, fully backs Israel's construction of the barrier in the West Bank and pledges to work to push for a new Palestinian political class to replace Yasser Arafat, who is referred to as a 'failed leader.'

One presumes that the Democratic Party is scared that they might lose their traditional Jewish vote-bank to the clear pro-Israeli stand that has been demonstrated for the last few years by President Bush. It may be noted here that recent polls have suggested that unlike 2000, when only 19 percent Jewish voters voted for Bush, this time round, that support might rise to 30 percent or more. This, analysts believe, could prove critical in swing states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Such an approach on the part of Kerry has disappointed many who have watched with disappointment the gradual marginalisation of Arafat by the current US Administration.

This trend is also not good news for the Palestinian leadership in general and Arafat in particular.

In the world of real-politick, where events do not always conform to high moral standards and international law, the immediate future facing Palestine is less than satisfactory. It is true that the non-binding ICJ opinion and the UNGA vote will have moral value but one can hardly expect anything more than that. There is practically no chance of a Resolution being adopted in the UN Security Council in this regard. The USA's position on this issue is already quite clear.

It is this sort of clear indirect support that emboldened the Israeli Prime Minister to state on 30 July that the United States backs Israel in keeping control of main West Bank settlements, drawing secure borders that includes parts of the West Bank in Israel and banning Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes in Israel. In the same vein, Sharon has also been reported as having claimed that the United States recognises that "Israel faces an existential threat, and it must be able to defend itself by itself by preserving its deterrent capability." Reading between the lines, anyone can understand that Israel is referring to its nuclear capability that was revealed by Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu to the London 'Sunday Times' in 1987.

The Palestinian leadership has to understand that it is no longer a question of scoring points and obtaining international merit badges. Support from the powers that be, will require serious re-evaluation. They have to do this and now -- not wait for the November US Presidential election. Current evidence does not suggest that there will be any particular change of direction in US foreign policy after this important event.

The Palestinian hierarchy needs to use the intervening months to work out their existing problems. They cannot waste time gloating on their victory in the Hague or in the Hall of the UN General Assembly. They have to prepare themselves for the next US Administration and also take note of the changing scenario in the Israeli domestic political arena.

They also have to take stock of the prevailing situation within Palestine ahead of possible withdrawal by Israel from Gaza.

Palestine is passing through a crisis. The economic situation has deteriorated alarmingly within its territory. Unemployment rate in the West Bank has risen from 10 percent in 1999 to 24 percent in 2003 and in Gaza to 29 percent from 17 percent. Similarly, UN surveys indicate that the poverty rate in the West Bank has increased from 13 percent to 37 percent and in Gaza from 32 percent to 65 percent.

During the 1990s, the Palestinians made a lot of economic progress and managed to organise a government that was fairly successful. There were allegations of nepotism and corruption but these were largely overlooked given the fragmented nature of the governance process.

The situation has come to a head now. Israel is now using the anger within Palestine to achieve its own ends. We have witnessed in recent weeks the confusion that exists within the Palestinian Authority and its inability to ensure security for the Palestinians. Today, the economically challenged Palestinians are openly protesting against decisions that are being taken by the shattered and corrupt political leadership. The Israeli game plan of creating chaos within the occupied territories is coming full circle. They are being successful in portraying the Palestinian Authority as being ineffective and incapable in leading and participating in any dialogue that can result in peace between the two sides.

The Israeli agenda is being assisted by the fact that since 1995, no meaningful election has taken place in Palestine. There is also lack of clarity and accountability in the manner in which governance and expenditure takes place. Donors, more than once have already asked for stringent reforms. The Palestinian Authority has claimed that it is difficult to hold elections in the West Bank and Gaza under a state of Israeli occupation. This approach is self-defeating.

To such a scenario has been added the constant tension between Chairman Arafat and successive Prime Ministers. From Abu Mazen to Qurei, frustration has been the common element. The question of responsibility with regard to security matters have unfortunately led to bitter rows. Israel has been the only winner.

The blame cannot however just stop there. The Arab and Palestinian leadership must also take responsibility for part of this 'mess.' Such a sorry state of affairs might not have emerged had the then Arab leadership exercised their influence to persuade Arafat to accept the deal brokered by Clinton.

This might have been the first step. Other areas could have been addressed subsequently. It is however no use crying now for the water that has already flown down the Jordan river.

Currently, Israel seems to be holding all the cards. The changed situation in the region has created their own dynamics. The Palestinians need to set aside emotion and carefully examine what can be done that might persuade the only superpower to be more even-handed in the coming years.

The USA will also do well to heed the advice given recently by former President Clinton in his interview on 10 July to Christiane Amanpour of the CNN. He has correctly pointed out that going to war in Iraq has not aided the peace process in the Middle East. He has noted most interestingly that 'the road to peace in the Middle East does not go through Baghdad, but rather through resolving the differences between the Palestinians and the Israelis.' Clinton rightly believes that peace requires that Palestinians have their own country on the West Bank with their capital in the eastern part of Jerusalem.

One can only agree with him that this, more than anything else, will not only reduce the impulse of terror around the world but also in the region in particular, and give the Middle East a peaceful future.

Both USA and Israel have to grasp this basic factor. Another historic opportunity will arrive after the US Presidential elections in November. This time round, both Israel and the USA, without being too concerned about Israel's security and existence (given its open admission about possessing nuclear deterrent capability), should try to help the moderate elements in Palestine to gain the necessary support for a peaceful transition to a sovereign democratic State. In the long run, Israel would also do well to withdraw from other occupied territories. This will facilitate peace and economic growth in the region.

Physical barriers might be able to stop suicide bombers, but that need not be built on occupied territory. Let Israel build a higher wall down their pre 1967 war borders. No one will have a problem with that.

Give Palestinians their own State. Let them run it. Economic necessity will ensure that they cooperate with Israel. Security for all concerned will be ensured with the emergence of stakeholders on both sides.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador.