As Italian troops disembark in Tyre, Lebanon, reinforcing UNIFIL, at the start of the latest UN peace-keeping mission in that country, there is a feeling that a new historic phase may indeed have begun. Indeed the Italians - and following them, after much prodding and hesitancies, the French - have saved Europe a few blushes. They have shown the world that Europe is perhaps ready to use its weight in favour of peace.

Could this be the beginning of the post-Bush era when the free world begins the very difficult task, which may indeed last decades, of undoing the enormous damage of these last few years?

The time has come for the peace-makers to take the initiative. It is the blue-helmeted peace forces that hold some promise, not the coalitions of those willing to go on a rampage where they choose. With Europe's midget interventionists in opposition, consensus may be easier to obtain on what needs to be done from here on. Time alone will show whether indeed we are witnessing a new beginning.

The multi-national force in Lebanon, once fully deployed, is planned to consist of around 15,000 troops. European states are to provide around half that number. The rest will come from various other countries.

The members of the force face many dangers, not least from the thousands of cluster bombs scattered by the Israeli Defence Force in some 350 locations and which continue to maim and kill despite the end of hostilities. Effectively the cease-fire is still being broken.

But the greatest danger will come from those countries and movements in the region that see the peacekeepers as a disruptive force for their best laid plans. Hence not for a single moment must the international community neglect or underestimate the need of continuously supporting the peace process.

The biggest stumbling block will be the disarmament of Hizbollah. Will Syria maintain its promise to seal its borders against arms shipments to this movement? The next would be to convince Israel to make serious concessions that will contribute to a lasting settlement of the Palestinian problem. With Hamas unwilling to abandon its armed conflict and to recognise Israel, this is going to be difficult.

Indeed if peace returns to Lebanon, if Hizbollah eventually disarms and if the reconstruction process picks up momentum in that country, then the world will have reason to rejoice. More importantly, as Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema has suggested, success in Lebanon may even convince the international community of the need to send a similar force to Gaza. Israel does not seem opposed to such an eventuality, assuming that conditions are mature for it.

While all eyes are fixed on Lebanon, we must not forget Gaza. The territory has been cut off from the rest of the world, the humanitarian situation there is abysmal and malnutrition is widespread.

During the 33-day war in Lebanon civilians on all sides - in Lebanon, Gaza and in Israel - suffered extensively. But the biggest punishment was borne by the Lebanese and the Palestinian people. The futility of war - always self-evident - was proven once again by this war. Although both sides claimed victory, when the costs are totted up both emerge as clear losers.

The EU has been expanding its aid to Lebanon and Gaza in an effort to boost the positive trends mentioned. An international donor conference was called by Sweden and the pledges have been substantial. One hopes that the money gets there eventually. An unrelenting diplomatic effort must be pursued to bring peace in the region based on a two-state solution, secure borders for all including Israel. It is also time to give the Palestinians an untrimmed state comprising the West Bank and Gaza.

Then there is the more challenging issue of Iran's nuclear programme. Tehran must be given no comfort. On this issue Europe and the US appear for the time being to be acting jointly. This is very encouraging and it is what most people like to see. We augur that this sets a lasting trend in the trans-Atlantic relationship. The free world can only be weakened if its two main democracies cannot see eye to eye.

And what about taking up Egypt's long-standing proposal of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction? It sounds madly idealistic, but is there a saner path to follow?