There are officially only two candidates in the Israeli election today for prime minister: Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon. But some commentators argue there is a third, hidden candidate whose name does not appear on the ballot paper but whose image is in everyone's mind as they go to vote.
I refer, of course, to Yasser Arafat, President of the Palestinian Authority, and the repository of his people's hopes over many decades. Age has not withered nor custom staled his charismatic appeal for this nation of refugees which still dreams of a return to the homeland under their leader, their one true friend in a world of implacable enemies and unreliable allies.
It is only in the last decade or so, since the beginning of the Oslo peace process, that Israelis have begun to regard Mr Arafat, not as a friend, but at least someone with whom they could do business. Formerly reviled as a terrorist, he came to be seen as a potential partner in a settlement that would acknowledge Palestinian aspirations while consolidating Israel's security.
In a mirror mage of the deal accepted by the Israeli leader David Ben-Gurion in 1947, Arafat was being asked to "settle now for half a loaf, and dream about the rest later". Hopes rose, as they invariably do, and for a while it looked as if the deal was actually going to stick. But when things went wrong, as they inevitably will, the foundations laid in the peace process were not strong enough to weather the storm.
If there is one basic difference between the Northern Ireland and Arab-Israeli conflicts it could be that, in the North, no matter how much relations deteriorate between unionists and nationalists, there is still a fairly substantial comfort zone of mutual respect and even personal regard that facilitates the solution of even the worst crises. That comfort zone, if it exists at all, is much narrower between Israelis and Palestinians.
In a healthier peace process the visit by Ariel Sharon to Jerusalem's Temple Mount last September, with its implicit rebuff to Muslim claims over this holy place, would have caused the mother of all political rows, with condemnation and denunciation, and perhaps even some violence - but not a revolt on the streets which has now lasted over four months with a tally of almost 400 dead, most of them young people.
"I'm really disappointed in Arafat," the Israeli army officer told me. He was actually a journalist but had been called up as a reservist for duty. It was all Arafat's fault, Israel had a deal, land for peace, he got land, now where was the peace?
But even objective Israelis admit that, despite Arafat's quirks and peccadilloes, the official Palestinian leadership is by and large moderate and open to compromise. The problem arises at grassroots level where militant groups such as Hamas are a strong force and the conditions of living for ordinary people are often poor to the point of being wretched.
The need for a comfort zone between two communities in conflict was never better illustrated than in the aftermath of Sharon's Temple Mount demarche. The Palestinians threw stones, the Israelis hit back with bullets, then the Palestinians produced guns and there were bombs inside the Israeli border.
The reaction of the Israeli electorate has been confused but angry. When they voted in Barak almost two years ago, they thought he would bring peace but now bombs were going off and their conscripted sons were in danger of their lives. It was a perfect scenario for a knight in shining armour to come to the rescue.
Such a character, despite his advanced years, is Ariel Sharon. Whereas in logic he should have incurred odium for lighting the fuse to the current explosion, instead it was Barak who got the blame. The mood in Israel is: put "Arik" Sharon in as prime minister, he is a soldier with a record of being tough and ruthless; the Palestinians will quieten down because they know if they mess with Sharon he will hit back with 10 times the force that Barak used.
Whereas the outside world may have thrown up its hands in horror at what it perceived as excessive use of force by the Israelis against stone-throwing children, many Israeli voters thought Barak was too soft. Hit back hard, teach them a lesson, put them in their place: that is the message coming across in this election.
THE question is, will to day's vote solve anything? If polls and pundits mean anything, Barak is a certain loser. But afterwards it will be Mr Sharon who has the headaches and such is the diverse and divided nature of Israeli politics that it will be extremely difficult for him to avoid a further run to the country before the summer in a general election, where not just his job but those of 120 members of the Knesset would be up for grabs.
The more immediate worry is, how will the Palestinians react? The likelihood is for a renewed cycle of demonstrations, deaths and funerals. Regional stability will be further undermined as Arab governments come under pressure to aid the Palestinians, and the Bush administration, which has been trying to keep the problem at arm's length, will have to try to damp down the fires.
Lashing out in their anger and disappointment, Israeli voters are turning to the strong man with the big stick and consigning the dealmaker and compromiser to perdition. There is potential for tragedy in their decision because there is a mood akin to desperation on the Palestinian side that no amount of repression may be able to quell. For all their proximity over so many years, these two nations still live in parallel universes.