Legality with regard to the construction of such a Barrier is currently the subject of judicial scrutiny by the International Court of justice at The Hague. The Barrier is expected to eventually stretch more than 728 km by the time it is completed at the end of next year. The 180 km segment completed so far -- a montage of razor wire, electronic fencing, concrete and ditches -- has cut off villages from markets, medical services and schools in the northern West Bank. This has been particularly true of the areas around the town of Qalqilya, where villages are severed from the main social, education, economic and health service centers as a result of the 25 feet wall which encircles this town.

It has also resulted in the confiscation of more than 2,850 acres of privately -- owned Palestinian land and in the destruction of 102,320 trees. These statistics have been made available by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

This land, which employs one quarter of the population there, is some of the West Bank's most fertile. Some Civil Society Representatives have pointed out that the average yield of this area is around 900,000 US dollars per square kilometre, more than double the amount from other areas of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

The Barrier is also limiting access to water in an area whose wells are some of the best of the western aquifer. It is estimated that by the time the proposed barrier is completed, it will affect nearly 40,000 acres of 'high income' Palestinian land.

The fact that any judicial hearing is taking place at all, is itself a miracle of sorts. The hearing has been instituted on the request of the United Nations General Assembly which has demanded that the Court give a ruling as to whether Israel is legally obliged to tear down this Barrier. It is understood that the Arab League has been given necessary permission to take part in the proceedings in support of the Palestinians. One wonders why the Organisation of the Islamic Conference has not been as pro-active as it should have been.

Initially, the United States had raised concerns about the route being followed by the Barrier. However, when it came to a crunch, they appear to have faltered alongwith the European Union in their resolve. The US filed a brief with the ICJ saying that the UN referral could damage Middle East peace efforts and set a dangerous precedent. The US explained that the referral was inappropriate and could impede efforts to achieve progress towards a negotiated settlement between Israelis and Palestinians. This approach would have made some sense if the US Government had persuaded the Israeli authorities to seriously start dismantling illegal settlements and put on hold the construction of the Barrier. Unfortunately, US abilities to persuade Israel appear to be limited given the fact that it is an election year in Washington.

Israel also submitted a declaration to the court on 30 January which stated that the court 'does not have the authority to debate' on the issue of the Barrier as it touches on 'Israel's basic right to self-defence.' Irit Kahan, an official from the office of Israel's State Prosecution also mentioned that the hearing was more of a political event that lacked juridical import.

Recently, on 18 February, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) came out with a statement that Israel's controversial West Bank barrier was a violation of international humanitarian law in its current form. They have drawn the attention of the world to the fact that the barrier bars thousands of Palestinian residents, stranded on its western side, from adequate access to many basic services. They believe that the Barrier, in as far as its route deviates from the 'Green Line' into occupied territory, is contrary to law. In this context, the ICRC has also indicated that while it recognised the right of Israel to defend the security of its population, it felt that any such Barrier should be moved back to the Green Line -- the boundary before Israel seized the West Bank in the 1967 Middle East War. This, according to them, 'would solve many of the problems' as far as they were concerned. They have also reiterated and reminded Israel that such a Barrier would 'run counter to Israel's obligation... to ensure the humane treatment and well-being of the civilian population living under its occupation.' There is a lot of merit in the observations made by the ICRC. What the ICRC is talking about is a need by Israel to stop further humiliation of an already oppressed, poverty-stricken people. What they are reminding the Quartet (the US, the EU, the UN and Russia) is the need to restore the dignity of the Palestinian population.

One of the most difficult responsibilities in the world today is that of the Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei. In more ways than one, he is being asked to walk on water. Such a feat is probably being thought of a probable as it was done once before nearly two thousand years ago.

Mr Qurei's many pleas appear to be falling on deaf ears. Mr Sharon has apparently proposed that he is willing to remove 17 of the 21 settlements in the Gaza strip. He has however not clarified what he intends to do about the other settlements in the Occupied Territories. He has also not denied concerns that this unilateral move in Gaza would not be followed by strengthening of other settlements in the West Bank. This situation reminds me of the proverbial problem of a snail climbing a greased pole, gaining one foot in the first minute and then losing two feet in the subsequent minute.

In the meantime, Mr Nabil Shaath, the Palestinian leader has made an interesting observation. He has suggested that the current leadership in Israel is being emboldened to test waters in its own way because of the prevailing situation on the ground. In this context he has drawn attention to the fact that the US is presently distracted from the peace process by various factors -- the upcoming presidential elections and troubles in Iraq. He feels that this equation is not only reducing the US attention span with regard to Palestine, but also affecting chances of serious progress of the road map. As such, he has urged Japan and other US allies to get more involved in the stalled Mid-East peace process. This is a good idea. For the first time Japan is directly involved in the Middle East. That country has an important stake in that region and should really be brought on board by the Quartet. This, I think, will encourage the peace process.

Secretary General Kofi Annan of the UN has correctly reacted to Israel's new proposal. He has pointed out that Israel would have to return land to the Palestinians in order to achieve peace and 'pulling out of the Gaza Strip would not be enough.'

I was talking a few days ago with Professor David B Burrell, the Head of the Faculty of Philosophy and Theology of the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, USA. He was in Dhaka to attend an important function of the Jesuit Community. He is also associated with the Tantur Ecumenical Institute of Jerusalem. We had an interesting discussion about the Israeli perception of the problem and also about greater peace and security for the troubled region. He said something significant. He wished that Israel instead of always wanting to own land would associate itself with the idea of belonging to the land and the region. This he left would advance inter-faith understanding. He is a wise teacher.

I am an inveterate optimist. It is true that there is a 'bloody stalemate' between Israel and the Palestinians, but there is also hope. Love and peace might not break out this Spring in the troubled region, but the important fact is that the two sides are thinking of talking.

In this pursuit of peace, Israel has the major responsibility. It will not be enough to announce that Israel is going to tear down a small section of the controversial Barrier or that it might re-route some of the Barrier or that it will stage an alternative Barrier hearing. That is a public relations exercise and a superficial effort to score points. Israel through concrete action must strengthen the hands of Prime Minister Qurei. Recent exchange of prisoners between Israel and Hizbullah have afforded the world a chink of light and suggested fresh windows of opportunity. It is true that the deal was long expected and took three years of haggling. However, at the end of the day, it did take place.

Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom has last week 'categorically rejected' the deployment of an international peace keeping force in the Gaza Strip after Israel evacuates most of the settlements there. He feels that this might lead to the internationalisation of the conflict. This is very difficult to understand given the fact that we are all talking of occupation and disregard of United Nations Security Council Resolutions. Such a track is also contrary to the welcome views of former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, who stated on 24 February that Israel has no moral claim to occupied territory or to Gaza and must give up every inch of the territories. In this context, he has made a significant observation -- "if you keep ten per cent of the land, you keep hundred per cent of the conflict."

It is being anticipated that the Arab countries might relaunch, with greater details, Saudi Crown Prince's peace plan, very soon. It is anticipated that the new offering will include more specific guarantees of security and formal acceptance in order to tempt Israel. It might also incorporate some of the elements that have been recently aired in the so-called Geneva accord, signed by left of-centre Israelis and some senior Palestinians. Let us see what happens. In the meantime, the Palestinian Authority should also take more effective measures to stop attacks on unarmed Israeli civilians.

I would like to conclude today by recalling the views of the great Martin Luther King Jr. who sensibly, three and a half decades ago, pointed out that "the solution will have to be found in statesmanship by Israel and progressive Arab forces who, in concert with the great powers, recognise that fair and peaceful solutions are the concern of all of humanity."

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador.