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.”

In the lead up the President Obama's announcement, there was an intense debate over former Senator Chuck Hagel's potential nomination as Secretary of Defense. At times Hagel's opponents became a touch hysterical indulging in excessively harsh rhetorical attacks. At first, they charged that he was not sufficiently pro-Israel or hawkish enough on Iran. But then, as is often the case, Hagel's opponents began to hyperventilate, upping the ante by claiming that the Senator was anti-Semitic or "obsessively addicted to dialogue" with Islamic extremist movements.

Hagel was, to be sure, vigorously defended by stalwarts in the foreign policy establishment. In the end, despite the virulent attacks emanating mainly from the leading lights of the neo-conservative movement and right wing pro-Israel groups, President Obama did, in fact, nominate Chuck Hagel to be his next Secretary of Defense.

I know Chuck Hagel. He is a thoughtful and sober advocate of the realist approach to foreign policy. His priority has always been to defend America's interests in the world through diplomacy and, only when absolutely necessary, to commit American forces to combat missions in defense of those interests. By disposition, he has an aversion to ideologically-based reckless behavior. His criticism of the war in Iraq, his opposition to the reckless use of force against Iran, and his critique of Israeli actions that impede peace are well-known. So too was his refusal while in the Senate to participate in AIPAC's frequent "hoop jumping" exercises. He resisted signing, as he termed them, the pro-Israel lobby's "stupid letters."

There were moments when I expected the Administration to avoid further conflict by throwing Hagel overboard and moving instead to a "safer" pick for Secretary of Defense. That the president offered a strong endorsement of Hagel and then proceeded with the nomination was a very good sign. But it's not over yet.

Republicans see the possibility of further weakening and distracting the president by "roughing up" his nominee and will in all likelihood subject Hagel to tough grilling when he finally appears before the Senate Armed Services Committee for confirmation. Their questions will, no doubt, focus on his support for Israel and his attitudes toward Iran. They will try to beat him into submission, forcing him to use the very shopworn language found the AIPAC letters he refused to sign when he served in the Senate. They will want him to demonstrate that he is more committed to Israel and more hawkish on Iran than he has been in the past.

While I certainly hope that Hagel won't fold under the pressure, I am bracing myself for a degree of disappointment. And while I believe the president is committed and will fight for his nominee, I am also prepared to acknowledge that Hagel's confirmation is not a sure thing.

What is at stake for Republicans is far more than just Israel and Iran. It is the entire neo-conservative enterprise that led the U.S. into two failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (which they cannot admit were failures) and has them still advocating for more aggressive military engagements in Syria and Iran.

A U.S. national security team led by John Kerry and Chuck Hagel will not only be more compatible with President Obama's world view, but will make possible a dramatic departure from the foreign policy that neo-conservatives have promoted and maintained for the past decade. A confirmation of Hagel will open the door to debate allowing the opportunity for realists to put American national security policy on a more sober and less ideological footing.

A Hagel confirmation, especially if he is resists embracing language that demonstrates subservience to Israel will also represent a threat to the power of the pro-Israel lobby to use intimidation to dictate Congressional behavior.

One thing should be clear, however, and that is if Hagel is confirmed there will not be a radical change in this Administration's approach to Israel or an American acceptance of an Iran with nuclear weapons. Hagel and Kerry, like Obama, are supporters of Israel. The Administration will continue to support that state's defense requirements and, in all likelihood, will not rush headlong into a new Middle East peace initiative since they appear to believe that conditions for that simply do not exist. At the same time, Israel will continue to face the U.S.'s growing displeasure with its occupation and settlement policies. And the Administration will not end its pressure on Iran to be more transparent with its nuclear ambitions and agree with international community's insistence that they forsake advanced enrichment. But the Obama Administration will now be fortified by a team that understands that engagement and not foolish adventurism is the best way to resolve the standoff while insuring that we not be dragged into another potentially devastating Middle East war.

At this point, we know what the stakes are, but have no way of knowing how this will play out. Will Hagel fold? Will Obama surrender to pressure and pull his nominee, risking defeat and embarrassment? Or will the Senate defeat Hagel's bid for confirmation? Any of these would be a setback of substantial proportions. On the other hand should Hagel stay the course, making clear his support for Israel while asserting his freedom and independence to criticize Israeli policies when necessary, and should Democrats decide to choose to support their president instead of the lobby and the pressure from the neo-cons, then we might well be on our way to a healthier political environment where realism trumps ideology and where honest political differences can be debated in our government without fear of retribution.

The stakes are high, but the outcome is far from certain.

Representatives from more than three dozen Arab American and American Jewish community organisations met in Washington yesterday to make clear their shared commitment to a comprehensive Middle East peace. Hosted by J Street, which calls itself the US’s “pro-peace, pro-Israel lobby” and the Arab American Institute, “the research and policy arm of the Arab American community”, the event was joined by Tina Tchen, deputy assistant to the president and director of the White House office of public engagement.

The message that the leaders and activists who gathered yesterday hoped to send, via this summit, was that despite their different starting points, both agree on the goal of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and are supportive of the US president Barack Obama’s peacemaking efforts to date.

This is not the first time Arab Americans and American Jews have joined forces.

I will never forget how after the September 1993 Rabin-Arafat signing ceremony on the White House lawn, the then president Bill Clinton and the vice president Al Gore brought together the leaders of both communities urging them to support peacemaking. Despite the euphoria of the moment, a joint effort was difficult for some, requiring, as it did, a break with long-established patterns of behaviour.

Organisations in both communities knew how to oppose each other but learning how to work together was new. However, as we were to discover, if peacemaking was our goal, then learn we must – for peace to succeed, there has to be a constituency that supports peace.

For his part, Mr Gore launched Builders for Peace, a private sector initiative that brought together 150 Arab American and American Jewish leaders in the business community who were given the challenge to work together in an effort to grow the Palestinian economy in support of peace. As Mr Gore would often say, while economic progress was no substitute for peace, without improvement in the daily lives of people, it would be impossible to sustain the work of peace.

To lead the effort, Mr Gore asked the former US congressman Mel Levine and myself to serve as co-chairs of the effort. In some ways we were an odd couple, since before that time, we had only come together when we clashed during my testimony before his congressional committee or when we appeared opposite one another, on crossfire-style TV programmes, debating US policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But as Mel would note, while he and I might not have agreed in the past, we did agree on where we needed to go in the future. And that was sufficient to build our effort and our working relationship.

Because of myriad problems, ranging from Israeli-imposed impediments to economic development and Palestinian problems with corruption, Builders for Peace didn’t succeed as we had hoped. But what did work was the experience of joint Arab-American and American Jewish co-operation. Friendships were developed that have stood the test of time.

The intervening 16 years have not been kind to peacemaking. Thousands have died. Terrorism and repression have taken a bloody toll. Settlements and new barriers to peace have been erected and Israeli and Palestinian attitudes have been hardened. Extremists on both sides have gained ground, while the hopes of many for peace have been dashed.

What hasn’t changed, however, is the imperative for peace and the commitment of many to make it real. No doubt, the conditions today are more difficult than they were 16 years ago. But we have a new US president who appears committed, despite the overwhelming odds, to unravel this knot and find a way forward. He has noted that he is mindful of the fact that advancing toward peace “is important to Arab Americans, important to American Jews and important to me” and has added that it is “important to the national security interests of the US”.

While the prospects for peace, in fact, appear dim, the Arab American and American Jewish leaders who gathered in Washington yesterday agreed that it is worth the effort. We are both cognisant of the reality that our commitment to joint action in support of the president and peacemaking is not shared by everyone in our respective communities.

Given the prevailing mood, there are some on both sides who look with suspicion on such co-operation. Some of us have been called “traitors” or “sell-outs”, but such rhetoric misses the point.

Those of us who come together, in fact, remain faithful to the different historical narratives of our communities. But we are not willing to let the story end there. We know that a way forward must be found in order to reconcile these competing histories and to replace the current reign of terror and oppression with peace and justice. We are unwilling to be condemned by the scourge of the past, but seek a way to create a better future. And we know that in the end, our two communities, the people of the Middle East and the United States will be better served by peace, than by the continuing conflict.

That is why we came together, and why we will remain together, until, God willing, there is a just and lasting peace.

James Zogby is president of the Arab American Institute

By any reasonable measure, King Abdullah II of Jordan's speech before a joint session of Congress was both smart and courageous. He took advantage of being only the fourth Arab leader given this opportunity to do the unexpected.

Some observers anticipated that he would focus his remarks on Iraq or on an appeal for more US aid to his country now providing refuge to almost one million Iraqis.

He did not. Nor were his remarks designed to pander or secure frequent applause. Instead, he focused his speech on a thoughtful and passionate appeal: the urgent need to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

His arguments were compelling. Iraq to be sure is a critical issue, but it is not, King Abdullah noted, the core issue that roils the region. "The wellspring of regional division," he observed, "the cause of resentment and frustration far beyond, is the denial of justice and peace in Palestine".

This, he concluded is the "core issue producing severe consequences for our region and for our world".

Throughout his remarks, he spoke evocatively of Palestinian rights using words rarely heard in the halls of Congress. Speaking "as a friend who cannot be silent" he told of "60 years of Palestinian dispossession" and "40 years under occupation" creating a "bitter legacy of disappointment and despair".

He called on Congress to support efforts "to restore Palestine, a nation in despair and without hope".

King Abdullah infused his remarks with a moral and political challenge, reminding Americans of their precarious standing in world public opinion.

He noted, for example, that Arabs and Muslims often ask "whether the West really means what it says about equality and respect and equal justice" and continued this thought by observing that "nothing can assert America's moral vision more clearly, nothing can teach the world's youth more directly than your leadership in a peace process that delivers results not next year, not in five years, but this year".

King Abdullah went on to describe the Arab nations' collective commitment to peace as expressed in the Beirut Declaration of 2002 which he said supported a comprehensive resolution to the conflict that included two states at peace with normalised relations among all countries in the region. (A commitment, I might add, that is born out in the results of a recent poll Zogby International conducted in six Arab nations which found well over 90 per cent of Arabs supporting a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict).

The king spoke, as a friend, with a sense of urgency, making it clear that the clock was running out for peace to become a reality. As I said, the thrust and content of the speech was unexpected.

There were, of course, applause and a number of standing ovations. But during long stretches, you could hear a pin drop silence in the crowded chamber.

From my vantage point, seated in a box overlooking the assembled representatives, I saw many members in deep reflection, frequently nodding in agreement with the king's observations.

Some members of Congress with whom I spoke were deeply moved by King Abdullah's appeal. Of course, there were those who were not.

Comments both critical and banal were issued by some who have been long opponents to a just resolution to the conflict. They will, no doubt, continue to find ways to obstruct the search for peace.

But there can be no doubt that the king's speech made an important contribution. It has empowered and invigorated Arab-Americans and American Jews who want peace, providing both, with important leverage with which to press their case.

The speech also provided food for thought for the still small but growing caucus of representatives who are convinced that the king is right - that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a core issue of concern, creating extremism in the Middle East and dividing the US from the Arab world and that the time for a solution is now, before "facts on the ground" and despair and more violence make such an outcome all but impossible.

There will be those who will find fault with the king's speech. Some will say it wasn't balanced enough, while others will argue it was too balanced. But the critics are wrong, the speech was smart and it was courageous.

King Abdullah used an extraordinary opportunity to deliver an important message. He is to be commended for doing so. He was so right.

The search for an Israeli-Palestinian peace is the core issue and time is running out. He gave the search for peace his best shot. This is his challenge, to which all of us must now respond.

If the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had wanted to make a real contribution to enhancing future prospects for an Israeli-Palestinian peace, she would not be spending her time in the region "sketching out broader political issues" with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. After too many years of US neglect, these issues are abstractions that pale in comparison to immediate needs.

What Rice should be focusing her energy on is reinforcing the Makkah Accord and pressing Israel to end its strangulation of the Palestinian economy and society.

The agreement signed by Hamas and Fatah, under the sponsorship of King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia, was an important development that the US should have immediately, even if conditionally, embraced. They did not. Still hoping for an intra-Palestinian confrontation that Fatah would decisively win, the US has made clear its displeasure with Makkah's compromise arrangements.

As a compromise, the accords can be criticised by partisans and ideologues alike. What cannot be denied is that they achieved what was possible by recognising important realities. First and foremost, there is the acknowledgement that a balance of force and a division of loyalty exists in Palestine. While Hamas won the election, Fatah retained not only the office of the president, but an important role in Palestinian society. For example, while the US-and Israeli-led embargo starved the Palestinian economy and made it impossible for the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) to pay salaries of over 150,000 civil servants, it is important to note that most of those affected were Fatah loyalists. The result: Palestinians in general - not just Hamas - paid the price.

Rival Parties

Pressure mounted between the rival parties, resulting in months of deadly clashes. But, in the end came the realisation that neither side could impose its unfettered will on the Palestinian polity. If left unchecked, the violence would have created permanent fractures, benefiting no one.

With Israel expanding its intrusive wall and colonies in the West Bank and maintaining its economic blockade of the West Bank and Gaza, and the US remaining passive in the face of these measures and imposing its own punishment on the PNA, and with the Palestinian factions pathetically reduced to turning their self-destructive violence on each other, the situation had become desperate. Saudi Arabia stepped into this breach using its political, religious and economic clout in order to encourage an intra-Palestinian compromise.

The political formula outlined in the Makkah Accord is significant. Hamas retains the post of prime minister, which they could not be denied, having won the last election. But they now become a minority faction within the new cabinet, holding only nine ministerial posts out of 23. Fatah and other smaller Palestinian parties will take over 10 ministries, while four of the most sensitive posts (including foreign affairs, finance and interior) will go to independents acceptable to both sides.

At the same time, the role of the Palestinian presidency to negotiate with Israel has been firmly established and recognised by all parties. And though still Hamas-led, the new Palestinian government has committed itself to respect "international and Arab resolutions and agreements previously signed" by the PLO.

Despite this less than clear acceptance of US and Israeli demands, the US should have acknowledged the positive steps that have been taken. With the Makkah Accord, Hamas has embraced a political path and ceded diplomatic leadership to Abbas. They have taken a step back from rejectionism by endorsing the Arab League's Peace Declaration of 2002 and signalled a commitment to a five-year truce.

Most importantly they have agreed to work, under the Saudi umbrella, to form a coalition government, thus removing Iran from the Palestinian picture.

Two-State Solution

If the US were serious about making progress towards a two-state solution, they would seize on these accords and resolve to work with Saudi Arabia to build on this accomplishment by pressing the parties to live up to their obligations by implementing the agreement in good faith.

At the same time, the US would press the Israelis to fulfil their obligations and commitments: to honour the US-brokered agreement to facilitate access and egress from Gaza; to stop colonies and wall construction and other provocative actions that impose undue hardships on Palestinians; close down internal checkpoints freeing Palestinian commerce; and return, as the US has asked of them, to the status quo ante of March 2002.

Without steps such as these, even the modest progress made by the Makkah Accord may be lost. What is needed now is leadership that solves real problems, reinforcing and rewarding steps made toward moderation and strengthening the role of the Palestinian presidency. Reigning in the Israelis and restoring some degree of normalcy to the Palestinian situation are prerequisites for any future progress.

It is not too late for the US to play a constructive role and spare the region more senseless bloodshed. I'm not counting on this happening, but I'd love to be surprised.