The belief that the United States can impose peace on Israel and the Palestinians is based on a dangerous illusion. No road map, least of all the one on offer, can lead anywhere unless the two nations directly concerned make a strategic choice of peace.

Israel may have taken such a decision in 2000 when it was rebuffed by Yasser Arafat. Now it is not at all certain that a majority of Israelis, and even less the coalition led by Ariel Sharon, are prepared to take the risks needed for peacemaking.

On the Palestinian side the situation has always been more ambiguous. It is quite possible that a majority of Palestinians living in Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem, given a chance, would seek peace. But they have never been given such a chance by a leadership, much of it imported from the outside, that has always played the peace card only as a tactic.

An analysis of Arafat’s statements over some 30 years shows that he has always been careful not to commit himself to an irrevocable solution of the conflict. Each time he was obliged to take the final plunge he walked away.

Arafat knows that a peaceful Palestine would become a democratic Palestine. He also knows that, in a democracy, there might be no room for the type of politician he is. Arafat functions best in the context of conflict and uncertainty. Arafat remains as in control as he was before Abu Mazen received a phone call from the White House. Arafat controls the purse strings, retains a veto on major appointments, and, last but not least, commands Fatah and its armed group, the Tanzim. His control over the security apparatus is exercised through Sal Fatah’s Central Committee. The majority on which Abu Mazen depends in the Palestinian National Council (parliament) consists of politicians loyal to Arafat.

Arafat will not allow anyone to emerge as an alternative Palestinian interlocutor. In 1992, Arafat deployed all his resources to destroy Dr. Haidar Abdel-Shafi who had emerged as an alternative Palestinian leader during the Madrid Peace Conference. And now, our sources report, Arafat is spending a good part of his time setting up roadblocks for Abu Mazen even before the latter has started on Bush’s “road map.” Arafat is not the only problem.

A substantial body of Palestinian opinion is opposed to any peace. A hard core represented by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and smaller leftist and Islamist groups, make no secret of their hopes to liberate the whole of pre-1948 Palestine, which means dismantling Israel. “We reject the two-state solution proposed by Bush,” says Dr. Abdelaziz Rantissi, a Hamas leader.

These are the crucial issues that the road map does not address. The road map is a diplomatic patchwork, written by many hands — including French, Russian and United Nations — and thus full of contradictions. It sets fanciful deadlines for achieving goals that have remained elusive for half-a-century. Anyone trying to drive by this road map” would either hit a wall or go crazy in countless zigzags. What is to be done?

There are some problems that do not have immediate solutions. The way to deal with them is to contain them and wait until the context changes. Often, doing nothing is better than doing something stupid and/or dangerous.

How might the context change in this case? The first step is to hold free elections so that the Palestinians have a chance to choose between peace and war. Given a chance, the Palestinians will choose peace. Despite his financial and organizational clout, Arafat is unlikely to win a majority in free and fair elections, especially if Abu Mazen joins the moderate center that currently holds a third of the seats in the Parliament. Radical groups are likely to end up with 30 percent of the votes. It is important that they be integrated in the system.

Once the Palestinian people have elected a new leadership with a mandate for peace, they could enter meaningful negotiations under the auspices of the United States. A new elected leadership will enjoy the legitimacy and moral authority needed to do what Abu Mazen cannot: i.e. disarm the armed groups that pursue their own agendas.

Palestinian elections should not be postponed further. The current Parliament has outlived its term and no longer reflects the mood of the Palestinians.