Between December 1998 and July 2000, efforts were made for a resolution of the growing crisis but all initiatives failed. Both sides only hardened their positions. Events that followed the terrorist attacks of 11 September only complicated the crisis even further.

Consequently, when the road map for peace was announced by the United states, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia, interested parties felt that here was a chance. Events have moved apace since then, leading up to the three-way summit in Aqaba, Jordan on 4 June, 2003. This was possible mainly because the United States and its present Administration finally decided to take a more hands-on inter-active process. Peace was once again given a chance and the region a moment of opportunity.

As expected, American pressure has encouraged Mr Sharon to express his commitment accepting the creation of a viable Palestinian state on contiguous territory. He has also indicated that he will take the first step by dismantling illegal Jewish outposts in the occupied territories. A few small and unimportant illegal settlements have been taken out, but serious efforts in this direction are still lacking.

On the other hand, the Palestinian Prime Minister Mr Abbas, better known as Abu Mazen having declared an end to the Intifada of the past 23 month, has not really been able to exert full control over the Palestinian militants. He has urged everyone concerned to resort to peaceful means in "our" quest to end the occupation and the suffering of "Palestinians and Israelis". Such declarations have however not been completely agreed to by the radical elements in Palestine.

Nevertheless, there have been important aspects if one reads between the lines. Crucially, Mr Bush has announced that the US would take control of monitoring whether the two sides are fulfilling their promises under the road map. This has removed an important area of contention: Israel's demand to have the right to judge whether the Palestinians are doing enough to curb violence. However the Aqaba summit discussions appear to have left out some significant matters. Most notably, no mention was made of Israel's 14 objections to the road map, which Sharon has said were a 'red line' that could not be crossed. Nor was any mention made of his earlier demand that the Palestinians must renounce the right of their refugees to return to Israel before the road map can be implemented.

What is however important is that there is again some hope and considerable opportunity. It is a cautious start, but much better than the present status of bloodshed and misery.

We have today an interesting scenario in the Mid-East. The real difference this time is the most obvious one. The US President has won a war in Iraq that has removed one of Israel's greatest enemies. This in turn has led to the reshaping of the security map of the whole region.

Previous US Presidents used Egypt and Jordan to seek peace agreements. Erstwhile Presidents, most notably the elder Bush, also brought pressure on Israel. However none have been able to discuss the prospects in terms of a change for the whole region. It is in this context that the current US President has an edge over his predecessors.

The US Administration's emphasis on factors that a Palestinian state has to be viable and that its territory has to be continuous, are both important. This is a direct contradiction of Sharon's traditional view. This itself is vital, given Israel's implied position that any Palestinian state would be a series of separate bits that could be easily controlled and swamped by Israeli arms.

This is an alternative scenario that has been brought about by the Iraq war and President Bush's instinctive agenda.

It has been a soft beginning, but not inconsistent with Israel's obsession with security. A least common denominator has been agreed to as a fundamental equation and one can build on that. The recent announcement by militant Hamas Jihad groups that they agree to a three-month suspension of attacks on Israelis will contribute towards confidence-building. Palestinian leaders Marwan Barghouti, Khaled Mashal and Ramadan Shalah have shown great maturity in this regard. Israel can also contribute to this emergent process by stopping targeted killing of Palestinians.

The Mid-East imbroglio is a difficult scene because of its economic and political importance. Today, the region is once again testing American leadership in ways that would tax any US administration. There has been no peaceful period for the US after the victory of the 'Coalition' in Iraq. The recent terrorist activities in Riyadh have shaken American complacency that the campaign against terrorism had been won along with the war on Iraq. The Saudi attacks also exposed deep new anxieties in Washington over the Saudi government's ability to help crush terrorist cells in their midst.

The sharpened distrust of Iran is also not helping American policy makers. Iran is trying their patience by supporting militant Shiite groups in Iraq and accelerating their alleged nuclear arms programme. Unfortunately, any way out at this point of time seems unlikely as any conciliatory steps by Iran would be interpreted by their conservative leadership as having caved in to American pressure. The situation is delicate and requires care and caution.

The unhappiness within the US armed forces in not being able to go after alleged Qaeda units leaving Afghanistan for Pakistan is also raising temperatures. Little can be done in this regard given the resurgence of Islamic parties in the Pakistani Province of North West Frontier bordering Afghanistan.

All these crises are unfolding against a backdrop of rising bitterness and confusion in Iraq, where the Coalition forces are being blamed for their comparative 'failure' to deliver basic services and for their inability to find the disputed Weapons of Mass Destruction. The contiguous region has also noticed with concern the forced deferral of American plans to install an interim Iraqi governing authority. The New York Times reflected on this when they recently noted that "American credibility in the region has also been sapped...by the failure to find Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden or any unconventional weapons in Iraq -- the rationale the Administration presented for the war" (Steven R Weisman, 27 May, 2003).

It is against this backdrop that one needs to appreciate the baby-steps being taken in Palestine. It is true that it will draw Mr Bush and his aides into a risky new phase of direct involvement in negotiating a settlement on the most intractable problems. This morass has dragged down many previous negotiators, but he should not feel anxious or discouraged with the built-in tough choices.

The US, whenever necessary, despite next year being associated with elections, should exert pressure on Israel along with Palestine. They will also have to be magnanimous towards Europe and Arab States and work with them. They have always played a dominant role in that region and need to continue to do so. If necessary, the US administration should also be prepared to commit American forces in the field to monitor progress on the peace plan. Having the National Security Adviser directly involved has been an important step in the right direction.

It is equally important that Sharon should offer encouragement to his moderate Palestinian opposite number and stop mocking him as an impotent 'chick without feathers' and 'cry-baby'. This does not facilitate the process. Similarly, the Israeli administration despite the vague nature of some of the phrases of the Aqaba agreement should show real "restraint" in their interpretation of this word, particularly in the context of Israel's ability to pre-empt 'terrorist' attack.

The principal protagonists in the region should understand that the stakes are far higher for the Israelis and the Palestinians after more than two years of bloodshed without mercy. It has cost thousands of lives and that must stop.

Ultimately, much will rest on factors the leaders cannot control: on the attitudes of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, and on whether they are able to compromise. However, there must be sincerity in approach and the political will to come together. The whole of the world is watching.

President Bush has used the phrase "ride-herd" with regard to the US role and one hopes that peace loving people will not be disappointed with the outcome of his efforts.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador.