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.”

EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy

Brussels, 6 June 2007

Let me respond to the comments of the parliamentary group leaders. Most of their interventions have essentially followed the line that we have been defending for some time. That is that the moment has come to move on from a policy of crisis management - which is very important but is not sufficient - to a policy, together with crisis management, of conflict resolution. We need to work for a political horizon that will really start to lead to a solution to the conflict that started 40 years ago. That is something that we are trying to do in the coming days.

When I told you that the Quartet met in Berlin last Wednesday I said that, for the first time, the Quartet is committed to starting to work for a political horizon. That means that before the end of this month we will meet - the Quartet as such, together with the Palestinians and the Israelis - in order to push forward the dialogue that is still at a very preliminary stage between President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert. These are the two people who should find the way to peace. It is our obligation to push and to catalyse this process and that is what we are going to do. That is what is written very clearly in the statement issued by the Quartet last Wednesday.

I think that this is a profound change and I would like to underline that because when somebody said: "are we going to wait passively for the catastrophe to arrive?" the answer is no! We are not going to do that, we do not want to do that, you don't want to do that, the people in the region do not want to do that. Therefore, the leaders of the Quartet are trying to push forward this mechanism to move on towards a resolution.

A few other ideas were raised by the parliamentary group leaders. There is the question of an international force. Let me say that for the first time in many, many years, the idea of an international force is not off the agenda. It has, as you know, been presented by members of the Knesset saying that the time may have come to call for an international force, which could, at least in the beginning, have a peacekeeping role, patrolling the border in the south, in the so-called Philadelphi Corridor where, as you know, the Rafah border crossing point is located. The Israelis are also considering that possibility, as are the Palestinians and the Egyptians, with differing intensity. This clearly needs further discussion.

This links up with what Mrs Napoletano said about the success of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). The fact that an international force - whose backbone is European, as you know - has been responsible for the application of the UN Security Council resolution has led some in the Israeli government and in the Knesset and in Israel as a whole to think that a model of that nature could perhaps also be applied elsewhere. So, we have to link all the issues together. What we have learned from our presence in Lebanon is that it may be possible to apply the model elsewhere, perhaps to provide a monitoring presence which would be absolutely necessary if we want to the peace process to come to fruition.

I would like to emphasise again, as regards Lebanon, that the United Nations Security Council Resolution on the creation of the tribunal is very important. The reaction to it has been very negative in Syria but the international tribunal is not against any person or any country. It is a tribunal to be set up in order to determine who is responsible for the killing of a good man, a friend of many of ours, Mr Hariri, who was assassinated in a manner that has to be clarified if we want to have peace and reconciliation in Lebanon. The European Union will therefore be working for that.

I would like to say once again that what we have done, working very determinedly, to mobilize the Quartet in the direction that it is taking now is something that has many fathers and many mothers but you can be sure that the Europeans have been working very hard from the very beginning to arrive at this point. Let us hope that we are able to continue working in that direction. I hope to have in the coming period of time, which will be difficult, the support, help and understanding of the European Parliament.

In response to further comments during the debate by Members of the European Parliament, let me say that we are debating a very important issue, the Middle East, and that although the situation is very difficult, this is a time of hope, which has not existed for a long time. I have been involved in the Middle East for many years. I was at the Madrid Conference and at the last Camp David Conference. And not since Camp David have I perceived us to be any closer than I feel we are today to the beginning of a real, meaningful communication and exchange and therefore to the beginning of a political horizon.

There are three reasons for this: one is the Arab League Initiative, which we did not have at the time of Camp David. Secondly, 40 years have elapsed. I think everybody is exhausted, psychologically, physically and politically. Out of this exhaustion, I think that we have to muster new psychological and political energy in order to move forward. And, thirdly, we have a mechanism, the Quartet, comprising the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and the Russian Federation. For the first time, we have the United States and the European Union at the same negotiating table with the parties.

I believe that all these elements change the horizon. We must try to move on, and not to falter. We cannot achieve a solution to all the problems in 24 hours, or by the end of the month. But we have the opportunity to move the peace process forward.

And, as a final thought, I want to stress that we must be proud of ourselves, as members of the European Union. If you go to Palestine, as you do, you hear criticism. But probably, if you really talk in depth to the Palestinians and Israelis, you will find a growing sympathy and understanding for the way in which the Europeans are doing things. I think that we Europeans have to recognise this every now and then. Otherwise we will never move forward collectively, as we need to do.

Moving this process forward is an effort for everybody. We have an opportunity. Let us see whether, next time we meet, we see progress. We will not see the solution but les us see whether we make progress.

This week we mark the 10th anniversary of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership by returning to the city where it all began: Barcelona. Ten years ago I was particularly proud to preside over the launch of a unique venture: the "Barcelona process." At the heart of that lay an inspiring vision of our relations with the Mediterranean partners, but also a call to duty. To create a zone of shared security and shared solidarity, of open markets and open societies across the Mediterranean. The way we pledged to achieve these goals was through true partnership and close cooperation between governments and citizens.

The launching of the Barcelona process was an integral part of Europe's response to the post-Cold War situation and to globalization. Above all it was a political act. It not only recognized our interdependence, but also created a new "Mediterranean identity." In the past 10 years, there is much that we have achieved. We are working together across the full spectrum of government responsibilities: economy, security, governance and more. No issue is considered "too sensitive" to put on the agenda. The Barcelona process has also solidified a network of interlocutors beyond governments and it has been a great laboratory of ideas.

But clearly our world has also changed since 1995. This is the post-9/11 era and we have to come to terms with it. In many respects, the Mediterranean runs the risk of becoming a dangerous crossroads of many of the perils of the modern world: poverty, poor governance, terrorism, human trafficking and political extremism. At the same time, this sea remains our joint heritage and a unique platform for cooperation. I believe we should remain true to the original Barcelona vision, while adjusting our partnership to focus on new challenges. Above all, we must inject a greater dose of urgency in everything we do. The problems are piling up fast while our capacity to respond has to keep pace.

The Euro-Med partnership is not the only international framework for multilateral cooperation with this region. But it is the most developed and in many ways preferred one. The reason is that it promotes both security and reform simultaneously. We reject those who insist that we should sequence things, saying that either conflict resolution or political reform must come first. Barcelona is about pursuing both reform and security at the same time.

It is true that the Barcelona process was born of the hopes of the Oslo peace talks. And clearly, the absence of peace between Israelis and Palestinians casts a shadow over our work. But Barcelona was about supporting the peace process, not supplanting it.

Moreover, we Europeans have been working nonstop to promote a peace accord. We have long been by far the largest donor to the Palestinians. We are now also engaged in the diplomatic process through the Quartet and in the area of security. Take our training efforts for the Palestinian police plus, our new mission as third-party monitors at a border-crossing in Gaza. These are big changes since 1995 when Europe was not directly engaged, either diplomatically or operationally, in the peace process.

Security and reform go hand in hand. Thus, we must step up our cooperation on new security threats and inject new impetus into our work on political and economic modernization. There can be no mistake: Promoting democracy, pluralism and human rights was part of the original Barcelona recipe. For us Europeans, these are essential values. That is why it is natural to seek to promote them abroad and why we are glad that our Mediterranean partners agree on their importance. We all know that successful governments must meet the aspirations of their people.

What are we doing concretely? We are providing monitoring and assistance for the organization of elections. This often attracts headlines. But we are also working on the "building blocks" of democracy, through support for civil society, by strengthening the capacities and independence of the judiciary, and by promoting respect for human rights.

Many Mediterranean countries say they want to advance on the path of political reform but that it should be home-grown and that they need help. I agree. So I am pleased that the EU will launch a so-called governance facility. This will not be a cosmetic initiative, but one that, over seven years, will offer several hundred million euros to those countries that are making the greatest efforts concerning governance reform. They can then spend the extra money on the priorities they have set themselves. This is what I call a true partnership for political reform.

We should also give more money to education and we will. Education is the silver bullet. Concretely, this means improving standards, eradicating illiteracy, reforming the curriculum, and ensuring equality between girls and boys. Education also means openness to each other's ideas. That is why we should increase international exchanges across the Mediterranean.

Managing the growing challenge of migration adroitly is another test of our partnership. Legal migration is an economic and demographic imperative for Europe, which must get better at integrating those who seek a better life on its shores. But illegal migration is often based on a cynical exploitation of the weak by human traffickers. All of us, countries of origin, transit and destination, have an interest in tackling these unscrupulous networks.

There will be a lot of speeches and declarations at the summit. Amid all this, let us remember that the Euro-Med partnership is there to serve our citizens, to prepare our societies for a challenging future. For me, the Barcelona process is essentially a project of hope and a means to banish hopelessness. It is our collective duty and our common interest to realize its full potential.

Javier Solana is the EU's high representative for the Common Foreign & Security Policy (CFSP).

Israel's disengagement from Gaza and parts of the northern West Bank has provided a momentous occasion for both the Israeli and Palestinian people. For a long time, the quest for a Palestinian state seemed hopeless. Now the parties have a chance to do something about it.

With Palestinians and Israelis facing important elections next year, it is manifestly in the interest of both, and indeed the rest of the world, that this operation be seen as a success. We therefore need responsible action and leadership by all concerned, including the international community. Disengagement is a huge challenge but also a great opportunity. If successful, it could revive the long-stalled peace process and enable a return to the negotiating track and the implementation of the "road map."

The stakes in handling the political, security and socioeconomic dimensions of disengagement are high. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's determination to proceed in the face of significant opposition from within his own Likud Party was striking enough. But seeing Israeli forces having to forcibly remove settler communities highlighted the dramatic nature of the operation and underscored the support that the Israeli government deserves.

For the Palestinians disengagement is a chance to win over the skeptics, in Israel and elsewhere, and show that they can actually run their own affairs in a responsible manner. If they rise to the occasion, it could provide them with the much-needed hope and reassurance that they are on their way to full statehood across the Occupied Territories.

The security aspects of disengagement are essential for its success. For Israel, the logical priority is to ensure that Gaza will not become hostile territory from which terrorists launch attacks on neighboring communities and the rest of Israel. The Palestinian Authority (PA) faces tough decisions concerning improving its ability to maintain law and order. Statehood means, as PA President Mahmoud Abbas has emphasized, respect for the rule of law and a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Both for the sake of disengagement, but also to promote a return to political negotiations afterward, the PA must move against those individuals and groups who continue to use violence. Then there is the challenge of handling the economics of disengagement. All parties have an interest in ensuring the economic viability of one of the most deprived, over-populated and ill-serviced areas of the Middle East.

Amid all this, one thing is clear: We cannot afford to fail. That was my message when I recently visited Israel and the Palestinian areas. I also stressed the European Union's willingness to do whatever it can to help, at the request of the parties. The EU is already strongly engaged with the parties and on the ground in support of disengagement and the peace process. And it will continue to be so in the weeks and months ahead, in a spirit of friendship and partnership with both peoples.

The EU and its member-states have long been by far the largest donors to the Palestinians, giving the equivalent of over $600 million annually in emergency support and medium-term assistance to institution-building projects. The European Commission has set aside $74 million, especially for the disengagement process. Moreover, the EU backs and supports the efforts of the Quartet envoy, James Wolfensohn, making sure that our efforts are coordinated carefully with other donors and spent to the greatest effect. In addition, the EU is ready, if asked by the parties, to play the role of third party in the area of customs management and border control. This would help to facilitate a free flow of goods and people between Gaza and the rest of the world, in a manner that addresses Israel's security concerns.

We are also helping the Palestinians to consolidate the various security organizations under a clear political chain of control. Through training, equipment and financial support, the EU and the member-states are helping Palestinian police forces to increase their operational capacity and transform their organizational setup. A core unit of EU advisers is already deployed in Ramallah and Gaza city. Provided that benchmarks for performance and accountability are met, we are ready to expand our commitments in the area of security.

All these steps, coordinated closely with the United States and others in the Quartet, present tangible evidence that the EU does not just say it wants disengagement to succeed: We are prepared to step up our engagement to make that happen.

Javier Solana is the policy coordinator for foreign affairs and security for the European Union. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with the Common Ground News Service.

Israel's disengagement from Gaza and parts of the northern West Bank has now started. This is a momentous occasion, for both the Israeli and Palestinian people. For a long time, the quest for a Palestinian state seemed hopeless. Now the parties have a chance to do something about it.

It is manifestly in the interest of Palestinians, Israelis and indeed the rest of the world that this operation is a success, with both sides facing important elections next year. We therefore need responsible action and leadership by all concerned, including the wider international community. Disengagement is a huge challenge but also a great opportunity. If successful, it could revive the long-stalled peace process and enable a return to the negotiating track and the implementation of the road map plan.

The stakes in handling the political, security and socioeconomic dimensions of disengagement are high. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's determination to proceed in the face of significant opposition from within his own Likud party is striking enough. But seeing Israeli forces having to forcibly remove settler communities highlights the dramatic nature of the operation and underscores the support that the Israeli government deserves.

For the Palestinians disengagement is a chance to win over the skeptics, in Israel and elsewhere, and show that they can actually run their own affairs in a responsible manner. If they rise to the occasion, it could provide them with the much-needed hope and reassurance that they are on their way to full statehood across the occupied territories.

The security aspects of disengagement are essential for its success. For Israel, the logical priority is to ensure that Gaza will not become hostile territory from which terrorists launch attacks on neighboring communities and the rest of Israel. The Palestinian Authority faces tough decisions concerning improving its ability to maintain law and order. Statehood means, as PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has emphasized, respect for the rule of law and a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Both for the sake of disengagement, but also to promote a return to political negotiations afterward, the PA must move against those individuals and groups who continue to use violence. Then there is the challenge of handling the economics of disengagement. All parties have an interest in ensuring the economic viability of one of the most deprived, over-populated and ill-serviced areas of the Middle East.

Amid all this, one thing is clear: We simply cannot afford to fail. That was my clear message when I visited Israel and the Palestinian areas, including Gaza, a few weeks ago. I also stressed the European Union's willingness to do whatever it can to help, at the request of the parties. The EU is already strongly engaged, with the parties and on the ground, in support of disengagement and the peace process. And it will continue to be so in the weeks and months ahead, in a spirit of friendship and partnership with both peoples.

The EU and its member-states have long been by far the largest donor to the Palestinians, giving both 500 million euros annually in emergency support and medium-term assistance to institution-building projects. The European Commission has set aside 60 million euros especially for the disengagement process. Moreover, the EU backs and supports the efforts of Quartet envoy James Wolfensohn, making sure that our efforts are coordinated carefully with other donors and spent to the greatest effect. In addition, the EU is ready, if asked by the parties, to play the role of third party in the area of customs management and border control. This would help to facilitate a free flow of goods and people between Gaza and the rest of the world, in a manner that addresses Israel's security concerns.

We are also helping the Palestinians to consolidate the various security organizations under a clear political chain of control. Through training, equipment and financial support, the EU and the member-states are helping Palestinian police forces to increase their operational capacity and transform their organizational setup. A core unit of EU advisers is already deployed in Ramallah and Gaza city. Provided that benchmarks for performance and accountability are met, we are ready to expand our commitments in the area of security.

All these steps, coordinated closely with the United States and others in the Quartet, present tangible evidence that the EU does not just say it wants disengagement to succeed: We are prepared to step up our engagement to make that happen.

We know from experience that the search for peace in the Middle East is hard, and that the absence of peace hurts all of us, inside the region and beyond. That is why today and tomorrow our efforts should be focused on making disengagement work. But we should do so with the hope and commitment that soon after, we can build on a successful disengagement to restart the negotiating track and resume the road to a two-state settlement. In that context we will have to deal with post-Gaza issues including further withdrawals, the routing of the barrier and Jerusalem.

Windows of opportunity are rare enough in international politics and especially in the troubled Middle East. We cannot afford to simply let it close.

Javier Solana is the policy coordinator for foreign affairs and security for the EU.