Will the Palestinians ever be released from their abject misery? Will the West Bank and Gaza ever enjoy peace and prosperity? How long will those cruelly abused people have to suffer the indignity of queuing up for hours, sometimes days, at checkpoints? How long will they be forced to stand by as their teenagers and children are shot for throwing stones at tanks? Is anyone going to stop the murder of babies-in-arms, the re-direction of water supplies, the wanton destruction of thousand-year-old olive groves, the extra-judicial assassinations, the missiles with their inevitable civilian toll and the demolition of people's homes; homes they have often saved up all their lives to build, often going without food to put a 'safe' roof over their heads? What kind of world is ours, which allows such atrocities to go on under its very nose and does nothing?

Remember all the fanfare when the former Iraqi leadership failed to comply with United Nations resolutions? Israel has ignored many more and probably doesn't even bother to read them when it knows its super special partner the United States will use its veto to thwart the passing of a host of others. This surely represents a moral dilemma for all of us when one side armed with state-of-the-art weapons courtesy of the U.S. can perpetrate crimes against humanity in the name of "security" while when the other side attempts to defend itself its fighters are deemed "terrorists". Since when does trying to oust invaders off one's own land and protecting one's own people be construed as "terrorism"?

What's more to the point why is the Arab world so silent on this? Why aren't Arab leaders speaking up loud and clear against the denigration of the elected leader of the Palestinians Yasser Arafat, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient? Why aren't they complaining publicly and vociferously about the atrocious treatment of their brothers and sisters in Palestine and using all the political and financial clout they have to force Sharon and his American backers to desist?

Instead, they repeat the mantra that the violence should stop and both sides should sit down together. But they don't - with the exception of Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who actually came up with a viable plan - explaining how this should or could be done. Who in their right mind will unilaterally dismantle their own protection apparatus and offer up their children as fodder for the enemy in the Gandhi-like hope the other side will take pity on them? Arab leaders should be demanding an end to the occupation, which, if occurred would go a long way to stopping the violence. How can the Palestinians be expected to negotiate with their occupiers when the occupier Israel, naturally, has the upper hand?

And what has happened to 'the Arab street'? Has familiarity bred contempt? Have Arabs become immune to the suffering of their Palestinian counterparts? Have they become apathetic or more concerned with their own problems? Or, are they simply turning a blind eye out of frustration and a sense of hopelessness as they gaze at the intractability and might of the superpower?

The answer probably lies in a combination of all the above reasons. Since September 11 when the U.S. administration sought to taint all Arabs and Moslems with the actions of a few and the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Arab leaders have become noticeably less vocal. As for the Arab people, they watched the devastation wrought by the IDF in Jenin; the elderly invalid who was crushed to death in his own house, the innocents used as human shields and the ambulances which were prevented from picking up the sick and injured. They heard about the newborns whose lives were shortened to hours because their mothers were disallowed from reaching hospitals and there was nothing they could do but look at their screens in horror. Comforted somewhat by the world's outcry they waited for something to be done. The U.N. did organize a team of investigators to travel to the refugee camp and ferret out the truth but all the Israeli government had to do was say "no"... and that, my friends, was the end of that.

Since then there have been umpteen Israeli incursions into the West Bank and Gaza with almost three thousand Palestinians having lost their lives since September 2000 and some 50,000 or more maimed or injured. What does the U.S. and Britain say about this? Hardly anything. Although George W. Bush did mention once that he was "troubled". Well, Yippee!

The problem is everyone including the U.S., Britain, Russia and Europe - and certainly the entire Arab world - wants a two-state solution and all pay lip service to this, including the American President. But that's all it amounts to, lip service. Nobody is willing to actually do anything, at least not since Clinton, who despite the fact he once said he was ready to take up arms and fight for Israel, actually spent a lot of his time putting the two parties together and urging them to sign up on the dotted line.

Who knows, if Clinton and Ehud Barak hadn't left office when they did only to be superceded by the right-wing, neo-con influenced George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon, found by an Israeli commission to have been indirectly responsible for the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla, things might have been very different. Although it must be said that Oslo only offered the Palestinians 22 per cent of historic Palestine, the 22 per cent occupied by Israel after the 1967 War, whereas Resolution 181 of 1948 gave Palestinians 53 per cent of Palestine.

Since the Oslo and Wye River agreements, we've had the Mitchell Report, the Tenet Plan, the scurrying back and forth of General Zinni, lots of discussions and commitments but a total lack of action except in respect of more tit-for-tat killings and never-ending Israeli land grab.

In March 2002, the Arab League adopted the first 'pan-Arab initiative' for peace in the Middle East offering Israel security and normal relations in exchange for withdrawal from Arab territories, agreement to East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital and either return of Palestinian refugees or suitable compensation. This was drawn-up by Crown Prince Abdullah, who was praised by the U.S. and Britain for his efforts, and then... nothing.

Then came the Quartet's much-publicized 'Roadmap', which promised to end "terror and violence, normalize Palestinian life and build Palestinian institutions by 2003". There was supposed to have been a 'second international conference' convened by the Quartet at the beginning of 2002 to endorse agreement reached on an independent Palestinian state, but they hadn't even bothered to hold a first one.

Sick and tired with the ineffectiveness of various governments, Palestinian and Israeli leading lights on both sides of the conflict - including Yasser Abed Rabbo, a former Palestinian minister and Yossi Beilin, a minister in a previous Israeli government - got together in a non-official capacity to produce the Geneva Accords, representing an unofficial framework for negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis. Details of Geneva were announced in October 2003 and received substantial media attention at the time.

In some respects Geneva continued where Taba left off with some exceptions and it was these, which set the majority of the Palestinian people against the blueprint. Under Geneva, the new state of Palestine would be demilitarized with Israeli security monitoring all those traveling in and out. Furthermore, Israel would decide the numbers of returning refugees and which ones would be allowed to do so. In other words Palestine would be independent in name only but after all these years of blood and tears, what use is the name without the game?

As things stand, there is little light at the end of the tunnel or should I say the apartheid fence, which is snaking its way, all 450 miles of it, through mostly Palestinian owned land, slicing farms and villages in two. Despite its taking years to construct by piecing together tall, thick concrete blocks covered with razor wire, and millions of dollars, the Israelis insist it's a temporary fence.

In February, the Palestinians took their case against this cage to the International Court in The Hague - a landmark hearing which for the first time brought Israeli crimes before an international tribunal. Chief of the Palestinian delegation Nasser Al-Kidwa told the Court: "This wall is not about security, it is about entrenching the occupation and the de facto annexation of large areas of Palestinian land". In a shameful sell-out, the British government, long a supporter of the tribunal and a critic of Israel's wall, chose to join hands with the U.S. and Israel in their stance against the International Court's jurisdiction.

The bottom line is the strong will never give way to the weak. If the world, especially the Western powers, do not want the decimation and ethnic cleansing of a noble people on its conscience and historical record, then it should intervene purposefully and positively without delay.

Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Mid-East affairs and welcomes feedback at heardonthegrapevine@yahoo.co.uk