Abir Dandis, the mother of the two girls who were murdered in the Negev town of Al-Fura’a last week, couldn't find a police officer to listen to her warnings, neither in Arad nor in Ma’ale Adumim. Both police stations operate in areas where Israel wants to gather the Bedouin into permanent communities, against their will, in order to clear more land for Jewish communities. The dismissive treatment Dandis received shows how the Bedouin are considered simply to be lawbreakers by their very nature. But as a resident of the West Bank asking for help for her daughters, whose father was Israeli, Dandis faced the legal-bureaucratic maze created by the Oslo Accords.

The Palestinian police is not allowed to arrest Israeli civilians. It must hand suspects over to the Israel Police. The Palestinian police complain that in cases of Israelis suspected of committing crimes against Palestinian residents, the Israel Police tend not to investigate or prosecute them.

In addition, the town of Al-Azaria, where Dandis lives, is in Area B, under Palestinian civilian authority and Israeli security authority. According to the testimony of Palestinian residents, neither the IDF nor the Israel Police has any interest in internal Palestinian crime even though they have both the authority and the obligation to act in Area B.

The Palestinian police are limited in what it can do in Area B. Bringing in reinforcements or carrying weapons in emergency situations requires coordination with, and obtaining permission from, the IDF. If Dandis fears that the man who murdered her daughters is going to attack her as well, she has plenty of reason to fear that she will not receive appropriate, immediate police protection from either the Israelis or the Palestinians.

Dandis told Jack Khoury of Haaretz that the Ma’ale Adumim police referred her to the Palestinian Civil Affairs Coordination and Liaison Committee. Theoretically, this committee (which is subordinate to the Civil Affairs Ministry) is the logical place to go for such matters. Its parallel agency in Israel is the Civilian Liaison Committee (which is part of the Coordination and Liaison Administration - a part of the Civil Administration under the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories).

In their meetings, they are supposed to discuss matters such as settlers’ complaints about the high volume of the loudspeakers at mosques or Palestinians’ complaints about attacks by settlers. But the Palestinians see the Liaison Committee as a place to submit requests for permission to travel to Israel, and get the impression that its clerks do not have much power when faced with their Israeli counterparts. In any case, the coordination process is cumbersome and long.

The Palestinian police has a family welfare unit, and activists in Palestinian women’s organizations say that in recent years, its performance has improved. But, as stated, it has no authority over Israeli civilians and residents. Several non-governmental women’s groups also operate in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, and women in similar situations approach them for help. The manager of one such organization told Haaretz that Dandis also fell victim to this confusing duplication of procedures and laws. Had Dandis approached her, she said, she would have referred her to Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, which has expertise in navigating Israel’s laws and authorities.

John Kerry revealed his long-awaited plan for peace in the Middle East on Sunday, hinging on a $4bn (£2.6bn) investment in the Palestinian private sector.

The US secretary of state, speaking at the World Economic Forum on the Jordanian shores of the Dead Sea, told an audience including Israeli president Shimon Peres and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas that an independent Palestinian economy is essential to achieving a sustainable peace.

Speaking under the conference banner "Breaking the Impasse", Kerry announced a plan that he promised would be "bigger, bolder and more ambitious" than anything since the Oslo accords, more than 20 years ago.

Tony Blair is to lead a group of private sector leaders in devising a plan to release the Palestinian economy from its dependence on international donors. The initial findings of Blair's taskforce, Kerry boasted, were "stunning", predicting a 50% increase in Palestinian GDP over three years, a cut of two-thirds in unemployment rates and almost double the Palestinian median wage. Currently, 40% of the Palestinian economy is supplied by donor aid.

Kerry assured Abbas that the economic plan was not a substitute for a political solution, which remains the US's "top priority".

Peres, who had taken the stage just minutes before, also issued a personal plea to his Palestinian counterpart to return to the negotiations.

"Let me say to my dear friend President Abbas," Peres said, "Should we really dance around the table? Lets sit together. You'll be surprised how much can be achieved in open, direct and organised meetings."

Thick locks hug the front gates of shuttered shops, now covered in graffiti and dust from lack of use. Only a handful of customers pass along the dimly lit road, sometimes stopping to check the ripeness of fruits and vegetables, or ordering meat in near-empty butcher shops.

“All the shops are closed. I’m the only one open. This used to be the best place,” said 64-year-old Mustafa Sunocret, selling vegetables out of a small storefront in the marketplace near his family’s home in the Muslim quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City.

Amidst the brightly coloured scarves, clothes and carpets, ceramic pottery and religious souvenirs filling the shops of Jerusalem’s historic Old City, Palestinian merchants are struggling to keep their businesses alive.

Faced with worsening health problems, Sunocret told IPS that he cannot work outside of the Old City, even as the cost of maintaining his shop, with high electricity, water and municipal tax bills to pay, weighs on him.

“I only have this shop,” he said. “There is no other work. I’m tired.”

Abed Ajloni, the owner of an antiques shop in the Old City, owes the Jerusalem municipality 250,000 Israeli shekels (68,300 U.S. dollars) in taxes. He told IPS that almost every day, the city’s tax collectors come into the Old City, accompanied by Israeli police and soldiers, to pressure people there to pay.

“It feels like they’re coming again to occupy the city, with the soldiers and police,” Ajloni, who has owned the same shop for 35 years, told IPS. “But where can I go? What can I do? All my life I was in this place.”

He added, “Does Jerusalem belong to us, or to someone else? Who’s responsible for Jerusalem? Who?”

Illegal annexation

Israel occupied East Jerusalem, including the Old City, in 1967. In July 1980, it passed a law stating that “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel”. But Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem and subsequent application of Israeli laws over the entire city remain unrecognised by the international community.

Under international law, East Jerusalem is considered occupied territory – along with the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syrian Golan Heights – and Palestinian residents of the city are protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Jerusalem has historically been the economic, political and cultural centre of life for the entire Palestinian population. But after decades languishing under destructive Israeli policies meant to isolate the city from the rest of the Occupied Territories and a lack of municipal services and investment, East Jerusalem has slipped into a state of poverty and neglect.

“After some 45 years of occupation, Arab Jerusalemites suffer from political and cultural schizophrenia, simultaneously connected with and isolated from their two hinterlands: Ramallah and the West Bank to their east, West Jerusalem and Israel to the west,” the International Crisis Group recently wrote.

Israeli restrictions on planning and building, home demolitions, lack of investment in education and jobs, construction of an eight-foot-high separation barrier between and around Palestinian neighbourhoods and the creation of a permit system to enter Jerusalem have all contributed to the city’s isolation.

Formal Palestinian political groups have also been banned from the city, and between 2001-2009, Israel closed an estimated 26 organisations, including the former Palestinian Liberation Organisation headquarters in Jerusalem, the Orient House and the Jerusalem Chamber of Commerce.

Extreme poverty

Israel’s policies have also led to higher prices for basic goods and services and forced many Palestinian business owners to close shop and move to Ramallah or other Palestinian neighbourhoods on the other side of the wall. Many Palestinian Jerusalemites also prefer to do their shopping in the West Bank, or in West Jerusalem, where prices are lower.

While Palestinians constitute 39 percent of the city’s population today, almost 80 percent of East Jerusalem residents, including 85 percent of children, live below the poverty line.

“How could you develop [an] economy if you don’t control your resources? How could you develop [an] economy if you don’t have any control of your borders?” said Zakaria Odeh, director of the Civic Coalition for Palestinian Rights in Jerusalem, of “this kind of fragmentation, checkpoints, closure”.

“Without freedom of movement of goods and human beings, how could you develop an economy?” he asked.

“You can’t talk about independent economy in Jerusalem or the West Bank or in all of Palestine without a political solution. We don’t have a Palestinian economy; we have economic activities. That’s all we have,” Odeh told IPS.

Israel’s separation barrier alone, according to a new report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD), has caused a direct loss of over one billion dollars to Palestinians in Jerusalem, and continues to incur 200 million dollars per year in lost opportunities.

Israel’s severing and control over the Jerusalem-Jericho road – the historical trade route that connected Jerusalem to the rest of the West Bank and Middle East – has also contributed to the city’s economic downturn.

Separation of Jerusalem from West Bank

Before the First Intifada (Arabic for “uprising”) began in the late 1980s, East Jerusalem contributed approximately 14 to 15 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) in the Occupied Palestinian territories (OPT). By 2000, that number had dropped to less than eight percent; in 2010, the East Jerusalem economy, compared to the rest of the OPT, was estimated at only seven percent.

“Economic separation resulted in the contraction in the relative size of the East Jerusalem economy, its detachment from the remaining OPT and the gradual redirection of East Jerusalem employment towards the Israeli labour market,” the U.N. report found.

Decades ago, Israel adopted a policy to maintain a so-called “demographic balance” in Jerusalem and attempt to limit Palestinian residents of the city to 26.5 percent or less of the total population.

To maintain this composition, Israel built numerous Jewish-Israeli settlements inside and in a ring around Jerusalem and changed the municipal boundaries to encompass Jewish neighbourhoods while excluding Palestinian ones.

It is now estimated that 90,000 Palestinians holding Jerusalem residency rights live on the other side of the separation barrier and must cross through Israeli checkpoints in order to reach Jerusalem for school, medical treatment, work, and other services.

“Israel is using all kinds of tools to push the Palestinians to leave; sometimes they are visible, and sometimes invisible tools,” explained Ziad al-Hammouri, director of the Jerusalem Centre for Social and Economic Rights (JCSER).

Al-Hammouri told IPS that at least 25 percent of the 1,000 Palestinian shops in the Old City were closed in recent years as a result of high municipal taxes and a lack of customers. “Taxation is an invisible tool…as dangerous as revoking ID cards and demolishing houses,” he said. “Israel will use this as pressure and as a tool in the future to confiscate these shops and properties.”

The schizophrenic language heard last month at the United Nations General Assembly about Iran could make people believe that it is enough to say things for them to happen. “Once equipped with the nuclear arm, Iran represents a challenge that cannot be contained. It could risk provoking the elimination of Israel and threatening Gulf countries’ security and world economic stability”, US President Barack Obama said. In other words, would Iran have the bomb, the first thing it would do would be to drop it over Israel.

“Iran will have the bomb next summer”, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, added — which actually meant Iran would have enough enriched uranium next summer to make a nuclear bomb. But then, will Iran be willing to do it (beyond the fact it always denied it)? Would Netanyahu’s words be, by nature, more trustworthy than Iranian ones?

The Iranian nuclear issue has been one of the more tortuous diplomatic questions of the last ten years, for at least two reasons: It is based on presuppose and hidden evidence.

Presuppose is that whenever Iran has an atomic bomb, it will drop it on Israel to destroy it — and then be destroyed itself more or less simultaneously.

The hidden evidence is that there is a country in the region and one country alone, which has enough atomic bombs to destroy the entire region. That country is Israel, not Iran.

Actually, the Iranian nuclear saga looks like a three-storey rocket.

The first storey is the one of processes of intent, intellectual manipulations and straightforward lies. The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, obviously leads the show, followed by the US and what remains of a European diplomacy. For these people, there cannot be any doubt that if Iran wants to develop nuclear energy, it is of course in order to develop a military capacity and use it inexorably against Israel. Having the bomb, “Iran could hit Israel”, Netanyahu said, which in his words means that “it will”. Iran may have denied it repeatedly, but why believe it when, on the contrary, it is so obvious that former UK premier Tony Blair (announcing that Saddam Hussain’s rocket could hit London) or former US Secretary of State Colin Powell (showing his ‘proof’ that Saddam had the bomb) should not have been unconditionally trusted?

The second storey of the rocket is an endless discussion about how far the Iranians are from having the bomb. European chancelleries have specialised in that space where the answers depend on everyone’s own standpoint. Neo-conservative analysts would normally think it is a matter of months. Former French ambassador in Iran, Francois Nicoullaud, in a recent article after last summer’s Moscow negotiations, was more cautious. He notably explained how the last round was not productive because of both, unsatisfactory compensations offered by the western camp and ill-conceived requests which had little to do with the fight against nuclear proliferation (including transferring material from Fordo to Natanz, where it could be more easily hit by US bombs). Last, one should not forget that producing a bomb is a thing and launching it in a reasonable miniaturised, short or medium range vector is something else.

Actually, the third storey of the rocket is the more interesting one. Let’s assume that Iran finally managed to have a nuclear bomb — Israeli strikes may slow down the process, but all experts agree, no one will ever stop Iran from making a bomb if it so wishes. What will then happen?

The so-called “deterrent doctrine” effectively says: “I make my own bomb, so that you are sure that if you hit me with yours, I will hit you with mine.” The world has been living more or less in peace for the last 60 years — thanks to this doctrine. So it shouldn’t be that bad. Of course, it is better to get rid of excessive stocks, as the Americans and the Russians have notably done for the last ten years.

But why cannot this apply to the region? Because, as one knows, there is one country that alone has enough bombs to destroy the entire area — incidentally, Israel neither acknowledges it nor is monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, unlike Iran. Would Arab states feel more secure when Israel says they just want to protect themselves, than when Iran says much of the same?

An article by Berkeley Professor Kenneth Waltz in last summer’s issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, Why Iran should have the atomic bomb, was not only provocative. It just reminded of the basics of any nuclear doctrine, e.g. the need of balance. And there is no balance in the region. Waltz also added that it seemed clear Iran had no sense of irrationality or desire of auto destruction. Whoever launches a bomb is sure to face retaliation.

Unfortunately, the international community headed by the US and Israel prefer to go on shouting slogans instead of reflecting seriously on a complex and multifaceted issue. They prefer, as the US has just done, withdraw from their black list the Iranian People’s Mujahideen Organisation, whose terror track record is well established, or insist on “putting higher pressure on the Iranians” and harden the embargo. Yet, who is actually the major nuclear threat in the region, if not Israel?

As usual the short-sighted observers praised Ariel Sharon as a hero, last week, but the true nature of the Israeli prime minister, as the worst enemy of the Palestinian people, was revealed within 48 hours after the Gaza withdrawal.

Soon after the evacuation, he issued expropriation orders to the Palestinian inhabitants of Al Azaria, a suburb of Occupied Jerusalem.

Yet, what a week it was! Cranes smashed houses and buildings in the land of Gaza, but the homes did not belong to Palestinian families. Helicopters flew low over terraces but did not carry out any assassinations.

Soldiers dragged out hysterical girls and women from their lovely gardens, but they were neither the sisters nor the mothers of Palestinian fighters crying over the death of their near and dear ones.

It was not a case of rejoicing over others' sufferings but the recovery of Palestinian land was an event to celebrate. The evacuation went rather well, even ahead of schedule.

A few Palestinians were killed in the Tulkarem refugees camp, a routine, Sharon would say. Some 8,000 people left the place to one million and a few hundreds thousands Palestinians, most of whom had lived in refugees camps for the past 50 years.

"The Bessis family used to live in a villa nestled in sand dunes in front of the sea. They now live in a prefabricated house that looks like a camping car, with a view over a railway station and a state road," French daily Le Figaro reported.

"Life is hell in Orient despite the monthly compensations that will be paid for two years and a $450,000 (Dh1.65 million) allowance that will help the family face its immediate needs. Until it settles soon in the Occupied West Bank."

Population

But for Sharon, soon means today. Nearly 240,000 Israeli colonists lives there and their number is increasing every year.

Sharon's programme is well known. "It is allowed to establish settlements in the colonies, but it is needless to talk about it, nor to organise a party every time a construction permit is granted," he said in July 2003.

In November 2004, his adviser Dov Weisglass was even more explicit: "The unilateral withdrawal from Gaza is aimed at giving good signals to the Bush administration and put the roadmap process into formalin."

In other words, give up a piece of land of no strategic value to strengthen the positions in other occupied territories.

Could this be the guarantee on existing colonies given to Sharon by US President George W. Bush, on the occasion of his trip to Washington in April 2004?

"One of the most resounding success of my negotiations with President Bush" Sharon said in an interview in France on July 22, was the final green light needed before implementing the "E1" project that has now just started.

It consists of connecting the Maale Adoumin colony to East Jerusalem, annexing de facto the Holy City and splitting the Occupied West Bank into two parts. Everything is ready for the third intifada to start up.

Meanwhile, the Israelis will exert more pressure on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, telling him what to do. The challenges faced by the Palestinians in Gaza are indeed serious ones.

They involve moving goods and people, organisation and bringing back to normal life a place that has been occupied for so long. It is obvious that there will be problems amongst the Palestinians. Yet, all this looks like derisory when geared to what is happening in the West Bank.

The evacuation process worked well but can it be a workable option if the United States fails to bring Sharon back to the negotiation table? Besides, what good is it if Sharon is not made to stop the construction of the wall and the colonisation process which, obviously, do not only answer security motives?

The international community, especially the European Union, may back the need to re-launch the roadmap process, but why would Sharon care when he knows that the Bush administration is acknowledging his latest fait accompli?

Luc Debieuvre is a French political analyst and writer on economic issues.

Once again, hands were shaken and pictures taken. One month ago, in Sharm Al Shaikh, the Western media said peace would prevail, for they only like good news from the Middle East.

If no bombs explode for some weeks, security is back; if Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas resume talking to each other, the peace process has nearly succeeded.

But why was it that there did appear some hope for the region this time? The death of veteran Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was one of the reasons.

But not because Arafat would have been an obstacle to peace and Abbas more committed to it. Abbas's political credo is the same as Arafat's and also the same as that of the majority of the Palestinian people.

But since both America and Israel had decided not to talk to Arafat anymore, the election of Abbas changed the deal.

Another reason was the apparent evolution of United States President George W. Bush with respect to the future of a viable Palestinian state.

Whatever the reasons the way the war is progressing in Iraq has made some arrangements necessary it looked encouraging. This being said, the Sharm Al Shaikh meeting, however, was destined to be delusive from the beginning.

The summit was dedicated to security issues that were only imposed on the Palestinians. No firm commitment was given by Sharon about the re-launching of the roadmap.

In Israeli eyes, terror has always been associated with the other side. And besides his personal interest in better controlling all Palestinian factions, Abbas's step-by-step approach could finally satisfy the Israelis.

A kind of a ceasefire is a first mark along a road based on reciprocity. Abbas had little choice but to support the only available negotiation instrument.

It stops short of solving any fundamental issues, but allows for a continued involvement of, and monitoring by, the international community. Lastly, in so doing, Abbas showed his good faith to America, both in terms of controlling violence and his willingness to negotiate.

Negotiation Technique

If Sharm Al Shaikh can produce some positive results on daily issues that are of essence to the Palestinians free travel between Palestinian cities, and loosening the army's grip over the approximately 700 checkpoints spread over a territory of less than 5,600 sq km then maybe there is hope for the people.

Hard facts, however, emerge against this positive scenario.

First, all history shows that no situation based upon reciprocity and parallelism ever worked in occupied Palestine. The two peoples do not seem to have much to say to each other.

The negotiation technique whereby major issues are kept until the end whilst daily progressive steps are made towards the other camp has failed.

The widely agreed solutions to the conflict return to 1967 borders, two separate internationally recognised states, international status for Occupied Jerusalem and negotiated right of return for the refugees cannot be implemented on a step-by-step basis, nor left till the end.

They must be imposed by the international community: that is, America should exert pressure on Israel. Simply because an insurmountable doubt would remain if the partners were both of good faith.

And this is a second reservation.

Where is Sharon's good faith when he declares, as he did last week that "Thanks to the settlements [colonies], we shall keep forever important positions that are essential to our existence, in [Occupied] Jerusalem, our unified capital forever, in the settlement [colony] blocks that are located in the most sacred parts of our history, and in the security zones that are of essence to our security"?

Illegal Activity

The Israeli Knesset's Sasson report has just evidenced the role of Sharon in the establishment of these 105 colonies that the Israelis themselves consider illegal.

Sharon goes on building the wall, the result of which is to reduce the future Palestinian territory by nearly one third of what it was supposed to be.

A third reason is the time the Palestinian people will be able to wait. Democracy was confirmed during the presidential elections and more will follow with the next municipal and legislative elections in which Hamas said it will participate provided of course that the Israelis are prevented by the international community from disrupting them.

Abbas was elected on the basis of the Oslo accords, that is the belief that final peace would be reached as a result of small, positive events. Hence, he must deliver something to his people before other political groups make the people realise they did not get anything concrete.

Would a landside victory for Hamas next summer help the peace process? Even though Abbas is said to be talking to Hamas leader Khalid Mishal soon in Yemen, the Americans should start thinking of it when they talk to Sharon.

Actually, the worst might be behind us. "What prevents us from moving forward is the present," said Leila Shahid, Palestinian representative in France.

That is all these daily fait accompli that Sharon pushes forward, making the situation irreversible the reactivation of the Absentee Law, whereby Israel puts its hands on the last properties it did not yet have; the partition of Occupied Jerusalem, a place dear to followers of the three monotheistic religions and that some humans are now disfiguring with a wall that cuts across its face like a scar. How long will the people wait?

Luc Debieuvre is a French political analyst and a board member of IRIS (Institut de Relations Internationales et Stratégiques).