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.”

US President Barack Obama got it just about perfect in his Jerusalem speech when he urged Israelis to see the world through the eyes of Palestinians. That portion of his remarks was so compelling it deserves to be quoted in full: “But the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, their right to justice must also be recognised. And put yourself in their shoes. Look at the world through their eyes.

“It is not fair that a Palestinian child cannot grow up in a state of their own — living their entire lives with the presence of a foreign army that controls the movements, not just of those young people but their parents, their grandparents, every single day. It’s not just when settler violence against Palestinians goes unpunished. It’s not right to prevent Palestinians from farming their lands or restricting a student’s ability to move around the West Bank or displace Palestinian families from their homes. Neither occupation nor expulsion is the answer. Just as Israelis built a state in their homeland, Palestinians have a right to be a free people in their own land.

“I’m going off script here for a second. Before I came here, I met with a group of young Palestinians from the age of 15 to 22. And talking to them, they weren’t that different from my daughters. They weren’t that different from your daughters or sons. I honestly believe that if any Israeli parent sat down with those kids, they’d say, I want these kids to succeed. I want them to prosper. I want them to have opportunities just like my kids do. I believe that’s what Israeli parents would want for these kids if they had a chance to listen to them and talk to them. I believe that.”

A powerful challenge for Israelis, to be sure, but one that should be listened to by US policy makers and policy analysts, as well.

The problem of failing to see Palestinians as equal human beings — of refusing to see the world through their eyes — has long characterised Western and US approaches to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

If I were to reduce the West’s understanding of the conflict to an equation, it would be: Israeli humanity vs. Arab/Palestinian problem. Israelis are seen as real people, with whom we can identify. They have hopes and fears and aspirations to live secure and at peace. Arabs, on the other hand, are reduced to one-dimensional objects — pawns on a chessboard to be moved about to satisfy the needs of the Israelis or, merely, as a problem to be solved.

Dismissing the full humanity of Palestinians goes back to the very beginning of the conflict. After World War I, US President Woodrow Wilson countered British and French imperial designs to carve up the Middle East with a call to recognise the right of Arabs to self-determination. To better understand what Arabs really wanted, Wilson commissioned the first-ever survey of Arab opinion.

The results were quite clear — Arabs overwhelmingly rejected British and French control, their plans to carve up the Arab East and to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. What Arabs wanted was independence and a unified Arab state.

On hearing of these results, Lord Balfour, the British foreign secretary, dismissed them out of hand saying: “We do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the inhabitants of the country... Zionism... [is] of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that land.”

For the past 90 years, it has been Balfour’s understanding, not Wilson’s vision, that has characterised the West’s handling of the conflict. The West has consistently deferred to Israel’s needs, expecting the Arabs to understand.

US diplomats have argued with Palestinians that they must deal with “political realities” in Israel or in the US. Palestinians have been told that they must recognise the constraints imposed on US presidents and Israeli prime ministers by a difficult Congress or Knesset. And in recognition of these circumstances, Palestinians have been told to be realistic and not make unreasonable demands.

US policy makers say they want negotiations without preconditions leading to a two-state solution. At the same time, they accept, and want Palestinian leaders to accept, Israeli “settlement blocks” (as “established facts”), reject the rights of Palestinian refugees (“it is unrealistic”) and acknowledge Israel as a “Jewish state” (ignoring the fact that 20 per cent of Israeli citizens are Arabs).

All of this is done in the name of “realism” and the need to understand the fears and concerns of the Israeli public, and the constraints they impose on Israeli leaders.

But what of the fears and concerns of the Palestinian public and the constraints they impose on Palestinian leaders?

By ignoring this reality, US demands have often placed Palestinian leaders in compromising positions, weakened their political standing with their constituencies.

If Obama’s observations in his Jerusalem speech are correct, then not only the Israeli public needs to heed his injunction “to see the world through their [Palestinian] eyes”; US policy makers need to do the same.

This is especially important as Secretary of State John Kerry visits the region in a renewed effort at peace making. If Kerry is to succeed where others failed, Palestinian humanity must be recognised.

As victims of occupation, the Palestinians, the weakest party in the conflict, should not be asked to do the heaviest lifting to make peace possible. And before the US asks Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to take risks, which he can ill-afford to, given his already weak position at home, we should challenge our own domestic political constraints and press Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to do the same in Israel.

A few weeks ago, I assumed that the main emphasis of President Barack Obama’s upcoming visit to the Middle East would not be the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Taking my cues from Secretary of State John Kerry’s recently completed trip and the way the White House had been “low-balling” expectations about making any progress in restarting Israeli-Palestinian talks, I thought that the president would focus his visit largely on the challenge posed by Iran’s nuclear programme and the humanitarian and political crises resulting from the ever-worsening conflict in Syria.

However, after an hour-long meeting with the president and his national security staff, followed a few days later by a detailed press briefing on the president’s itinerary by a deputy national security adviser, it is clear that I was wrong.

Earlier this week, I was part of a group of Arab American leaders who met with Obama and his senior advisers to discuss his visits to Israel, Palestine and Jordan. Following our conversation, the White House issued a statement saying, in part, that the president “underscored that the trip is an opportunity for him to demonstrate the United States’ commitment to the Palestinian people — in the West Bank and Gaza — and to partnering with the Palestinian Authority as it continues building institutions that will be necessary to build a truly independent Palestinian state”.

Our discussions with the president were instructive on many levels — in particular, his interest in hearing our ideas about how to make the visit as productive and meaningful as possible. We offered a range of suggestions, including the need to reach out directly to the Palestinian people, the business community struggling to create jobs, young people in need of hope, Christians concerned about their future in the Holy Land, women seeking empowerment, and those who are committed to a non-violent approach to challenging the occupation.

We emphasised that just as he intended, in Israel, to speak directly to the Israeli people, making clear to them his understanding of their history and his commitment to their security, it would be also important to find opportunities to directly address the Palestinians. In this context, we found promising the post-meeting statement issued by the White House and the details of the final trip schedule.

As has been made clear on several occasions by administration officials, the president will not use this visit to offer a plan to immediately restart negotiations. Conditions simply do not exist for a peace-making initiative to bear fruit. The newly constituted Israeli government leans too far to the right. The Palestinian house is also in disarray, with reconciliation talks still stalled.

Given this, the best the president can do, in the short term, is attempt to speak directly to both peoples, reasserting his commitment to them and to a peaceful future in an effort to change the discourse in both societies, away from the cynicism and hardline views that have made progress towards peace so difficult.

Seen in this light, almost every aspect of the president’s visit contains a message to the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. He will want to win their confidence, demonstrating that he understands their histories and current realities.

He will then note the dangers inherent in the current trajectory of regional developments, and the challenges and opportunities that making peace will entail.

He will engage the leadership of both communities, but he will also go beyond the leaders, to speak directly to young Israelis and Palestinians about their futures.

No doubt, both Iran and the Arab Spring will be topics of conversation in Israel and Jordan. While in Jordan, the president will want to support the changes under way and encourage the country to continue on the path of reform. He will also focus on the impact of the humanitarian crisis that has seen hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees coming into Jordan, testing that country’s resources and political order.

Another aspect of the Syrian war and the Middle East’s tumultuous last decade is the increased vulnerability of the region’s Christians. In a surprise move, the White House added a stopover in Bethlehem between the president’s visit to Israel and his trip to Jordan. Going to that city’s Church of the Nativity will allow the president to focus attention on the 2,000-year presence of Christians not only in the Holy Land, but also in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq.

While in Bethlehem, the president’s team will be able to see first-hand the impact of the occupation on Palestinians’ daily life. First and foremost will be the 8-metre-high wall that snakes around the little city, cutting Bethlehem from Jerusalem.

And then there is the Israeli settlement of Har Homa. While the Israelis refer to this development as a “neighbourhood” of Jerusalem, it is actually built on land seized in large part from Bethlehem.

In the late 1990s, then-president Bill Clinton strongly objected to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plans to build Har Homa on the green hill of Jabal Abu Ghneim. Netanyahu defied the US. Today, that green space is gone, replaced by a settlement that is home to 15,000 Israelis (with expansion plans calling for a few thousand more). It, like the wall, separates Bethlehem from Jerusalem.

This will be the president’s first trip of his second term, and while he will not table a peace plan, every indication is that he remains committed to an Israeli-Palestinian peace.

This trip is designed to be the beginning of a process to engage the Israeli and Palestinian peoples (and American Jews and Arab Americans) in an effort to win new support for peace-making efforts that will follow.

In a week, John Kerry travels to the Middle East and the Arab Gulf states for his first trip as US secretary of state. A few weeks later, Barack Obama will make his first trip to Israel as president, followed by his first visits to Palestine and Jordan.

High on the agenda of both president and secretary of state will be the civil war in Syria and the regional crisis it has created, as well as Iran’s nuclear programme. Earlier maiden voyages to the region by presidents and their emissaries focused on Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. I hope I am proven wrong, but I do not believe that we will see any serious effort to restart peace talks.

I say this not because I believe the White House has lost interest in resolving this critical conflict or because I think that it no longer understands that Israeli-Palestinian peace is vital to US interests in the region. The reason for my pessimism is simple: current conditions make progress impossible and pretending otherwise would be a fool’s errand.

First and foremost, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has, to date, been unable to form a government (this is the reason being given for why Kerry is not going to Israel). The recently completed Israeli election left the prime minister weakened. Ever the manoeuvrer, Netanyahu is attempting to cobble together a governing coalition by tilting this way and that — mixing secular and religious parties, advocates of renewed talks with the Palestinians with hardline opponents. He appears to thrive on dysfunction. The paralysis it produces allows him to rule while avoiding the tough decisions.

Netanyahu will be forced to either call new elections or form a government of indecision. My bet is that, fearing a loss in new elections, desperation will win and Netanyahu will form a weak governing coalition able to expand settlements, but incapable of advancing peace.

The Palestinian situation is also dysfunctional. Unity talks between Fateh and Hamas have been fruitless. We once criticised the notion of an endless “peace process” that was all process and no peace. This appears to have been replaced by a “reconciliation process” that is all process and no reconciliation. Given their divisions, it is difficult to see how Palestinians can move forward with any peace-making effort.

But it is not only Israelis and Palestinians who are in no position to make peace; neither is the US. Despite Obama’s reelection, nothing has changed in Washington’s inability to deal with Middle East peacemaking. The continued resistance of Congress to any reasoned discourse on Israel was on display this month during the debate over Chuck Hagel’s confirmation as secretary of defence. This debacle harkened back to the humiliating “smackdown” Congress delivered to the president in 2011 when it publicly supported Netanyahu’s position over that of its own president.

In this sorry state of affairs, it is hard to see any new bold initiatives coming from Washington. Israelis wouldn’t accept it. Palestinians couldn’t do anything with it. And Congress wouldn’t support it.

That does not mean the White House will do nothing. The president can raise critical questions and support positive behaviour while challenging bad behaviour. He may speak out about settlements, warning that expanding these colonies in the West Bank and East Jerusalem will make peace impossible. Israelis will, no doubt, be told that the US will continue to support their security, but they should also be told to decide whether the future they seek is one of peace and partnership in a changing Middle East, or one in which they remain at war both internally and externally.

Additionally, the president can and should address Palestinian realities, giving support to Palestine’s civil society and business community. Labouring under the most difficult circumstances, support for these critical sectors is vital.

No fool’s errand, but a recognition of real needs and gestures of support may be all that can be expected at this time.

Iran and Syria, however, will likely dominate the agenda of the president and his secretary of state. Both are pressing regional concerns that cannot be ignored and must be addressed. Kerry’s itinerary, including Turkey and several Gulf states, suggests that these topics are front and centre on his agenda.

The flood of Syrian refugees to Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon has become a humanitarian disaster. The refugees face dire conditions that must be addressed. They are taxing the resources of host countries. The humanitarian situation is especially important in Jordan. Also of concern is the fear that Syria’s violence and instability will spill over into the broader region.

Almost from the beginning, Syria’s civil war became a regional proxy war in which no one wins and everyone loses. Now, 70,000 lost lives later, there are hints of an international initiative, with the US and Russia in the lead, to find a negotiated settlement. Though certainly difficult, there are hopes this effort can be advanced. For it to succeed, the Russians, Turks and the Gulf states must be on board.

With talks beginning with the Iranians over their nuclear programme, Gulf Arab states will want assurances that their concerns will be considered. Israel is again making unhelpful “red line” warnings. At this point, its threat of a military strike, though dangerous, rings hollow.

With Iran losing popularity in the Arab world because of its involvement in Syria, the last thing the already unsettled Middle East region needs is for Israel to create a new disruption. It should be told to cool its rhetoric.

The agenda for these visits will be different than those of previous visits by presidents and secretaries of state. It will, no doubt, be disappointing to those desperate to see a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But reality trumps aspirations. At this point, Syria and Iran take priority.

During the next few months, the Arab world will have its hands full with problems requiring urgent attention. Chief among them are the ongoing crises in Syria and Palestine, both of which are fast approaching their respective “points of no return”.

Instead of acting as spectators or enablers, or waiting for the United Nations or the United States to provide solutions, there are practical steps through collective Arab action that might make a real difference.

The continuing tragedy of Syria will be front and centre for months to come, with both regime and opposition appearing determined to continue their “dance until death”.

UN-Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi’s dire warnings should be heeded. If no political solution is found, the situation will only worsen. With the regime increasingly desperate and brutal, and the opposition better armed but lacking control of some its elements, the future promises only an accelerated casualty rate and a deepening of sectarian animosity.

Brahimi has tabled a plan that proposes a political process that gradually moves the government away from single party domination. The Russians have been given the responsibility to bring the regime to the table. Key Arab states should assume the parallel responsibility of pressing the opposition to agree to a peaceful transition.

To date, opposition leaders have refused to consider any form of negotiations or compromise with the regime. While their anger at, and distrust of, the Assad government is understandable, holding out for a decisive win is neither responsible nor is it a politically sound strategy.

Given the reality of a divided Syrian polity, compromise and a transitional approach to change appear to be the wisest means forward. The solution envisioned by Brahimi will not provide a clear-cut victory for any side, but it will end the bloodletting and pave the way for a political solution that can bring real change and an end to the authoritarian rule by the Assad family.

Arab states have leverage here since they are funding, arming and supporting the opposition. Instead of merely enabling more conflict, Arab states should use the leverage they have with their allies in Syria to take the lead and end the killing and destruction before the country collapses, fragments and/or the violence spills across the border destabilising an already fragile region.

This will not be easy — compromise never is and success cannot be guaranteed. But it is the least horrible outcome to a terrible two-year-long war that with time can only get worse.

Compromise will require leadership that, at this time, only Arabs can provide.

Another area where the region’s leadership must play an active and supportive role is in the effort to achieve an Israeli-Palestinian peace.

The Palestinian situation was near tragic four years ago and has not improved since. The Palestinian house remains in disarray, with leaderships in the West Bank and Gaza both physically and ideologically divided.

Gaza, under the control of Hamas, continues to be strangled by an oppressive embargo. The West Bank itself is being slowly strangled by never-ending settlement growth, hundreds of intrusive and humiliating checkpoints, and an oppressive wall/barrier snaking in and out of Palestinian lands.

The paths chosen by Palestine’s two leaderships, though contradictory, are both flawed. Hamas has made a religion of “resistance”, which has won nothing but death and hardship for Palestinians, insecurity in Israel and reinforcement for hardline Israeli policies. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority’s commitment to diplomacy and negotiations, while commendable, has become pointless, since negotiating without leverage (and without control over the constituency for which one is negotiating) becomes an empty exercise.

Meanwhile, the hardline Israeli government, hell-bent on conquest, continues to act with impunity — expanding settlements and tormenting Palestinians under their control. The far-right in Israel has come to define Israeli politics, while the “peace camp” has floundered.

If this dynamic remains unchecked, in short order, one of two outcomes may occur: either Israel will complete its plan for the physical domination of the West Bank and the total transformation of Jerusalem — making separation into two states impossible; or there will be renewed violence with devastating consequences for the Palestinian people.

Our recent polling in Israel and among Palestinians, both in the occupied lands and refugees in Jordan and Lebanon, establishes that peace remains possible. The two publics, though divided on many issues, show important points convergence.

What is required is a vision that can move opinion and leadership. These will not come from the US or Israel, and cannot come from the Palestinians. But leading Arab states can provide leadership that could alter the dynamic and change opinion.

The first priority must be to achieve Palestinian reconciliation and to establish an effective and unified Palestinian government that can command both popular support and the respect of the international community. This will require more than a redux of the Mecca Accords.

Up until now, Arab reconciliation efforts have focused exclusively on political matters, with hollow threats of sanctions for the party that interfered with implementation. Instead of threats, the Arab leadership ought to create incentives for acceptance.

What both the West Bank and Gaza desperately need are job creation, infrastructure and capacity-building projects, as well as immediate relief. The Arabs already participate in international efforts to subsidise the Palestinian Authority budget and individual Arab states finance projects in both Palestinian territories. But these funds given this way merely serve to underwrite the two divided Palestinian leaderships maintaining the unacceptable status quo.

To move the reconciliation process forward, I would propose the creation of a massive multi-billion dollar “Peace and reconciliation incentive fund” that would provide immediate relief and job-creating investment once the parties have agreed to and taken steps to implement a unity plan.

The bottom line purpose of the fund would be to support the Palestinian people and to create the incentive and pressure for their divided leaderships to agree on a new government which, with Arab backing, is ready and able to make peace.

In addition, the Arab League, instead of merely reaffirming its 2002 and 2007 peace plan, would do well to enlarge upon it by putting, as it were, “meat on the bone”. They could, for example, spell out in greater detail for Israelis the types of investment and/or trade incentives that would accompany final peace and/or normalisation. And they could even create a staged sequencing (for example, with the signing of an Israeli-Palestinian framework, stage one will occur; with removal of settlements and checkpoints in compliance with agreement, stage two will occur, etc.).

Our polling shows that the Arab Peace Initiative has strong support among Palestinians and has the potential to positively change Israeli opinion. Spelling out, therefore, the benefits and vision that accompany final peace could be of benefit.

If Arab leaders were then to “go on the road” selling their plan to world public opinion, it would have a tremendous impact in advancing peace and transforming views of Arabs.

Promoting a peaceful transition in Syria, Palestinian reconciliation and a comprehensive Middle East peace will not be easy. Demonstrating leadership, making a difference and changing the trajectory of history never is.