Washington, DC, May. 14 (UPI) -- If all goes well, the Israelis will soon be disengaging from the Gaza Strip. But what will happen to the settlements they leave behind is undecided. Initially, the plan was to destroy the buildings left behind, but now it seems more likely they will be left standing. It is essential we carefully consider all the available options and do what is most likely to help enlarge the current window of opportunity.

Proponents of destroying the Gaza properties note these large and luxurious houses are no help to Gaza's overcrowding. High-occupancy apartments are the answer. If the homes were left standing, it would be a nightmare to decide who occupies them. Perhaps the rich or corrupt would get to live in the houses, increasing social tensions. Or perhaps Hamas would take over the settlements, claiming they forced Israel to withdraw.

However, destroying the settlements would cause other problems. Walter Isaacson of the Aspen Institute recently expressed concern in The New York Times over the planned bulldozing of homes, greenhouses and other assets built by Israeli settlers in the Gaza Strip, as part of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement initiative. Among the reasons given by Isaacson is the prohibitive cost -- $18 million -- of dismantling many fortified structures. Destroying the buildings also might attract negative public opinion from around the world toward Israel, as did dynamiting Yamit in the Sinai before it was handed over to Egypt a quarter of a century ago. In addition, there is the issue of destroying the infrastructure around the bulldozed buildings, which would make redeveloping the area difficult.

Isaacson hopes the buildings could be spared and turned to some constructive or symbolic use to enhance the fledgling peace being born between Palestinians and Israelis. For example, the greenhouses in Gaza take up about 1,000 acres. If, instead of being destroyed, they were left to be used by the Palestinians, they could provide work and support for many. Or, a symbolic peace garden and park could be created out of some of the existing structures.

Whether the buildings are destroyed or saved, the essential ingredient for success is Palestinian involvement and an open and transparent process to determine what is best to help improve the sordid living conditions of the Palestinian people. But this has not been the case, so far. The lack of coordination between Palestinians and Israelis has made planning for post-disengagement Gaza almost impossible. What may be needed is the help of a third party, in the form of a non-governmental organization, another country, the World Bank or the broader international community.

A third party may be useful to help coordinate between the Israelis and the Palestinians, possibly using shuttle diplomacy, and may further be helpful in facilitating an open discussion, maybe through forums, among Palestinians on what to do with the settlements after disengagement. A third party may also be able to help financially. For example, if a third party were to buy the Gaza greenhouses, not only would Palestinians be able to work in the greenhouses to support themselves, but the former owners would receive compensation as well. (If the greenhouses were destroyed, the former owners would only be entitled to 66 percent of their value, according to the settler compensation law passed by the Knesset.) The inclusion of a third party can also help create positive energy and public opinion around the process, and can help mitigate negative responses if problems arise.

But the most important role a third party can play is facilitating an open decision-making process that will make the best assessments for the welfare of the Palestinian people. So many decisions will need to be made after the disengagement, such as how much land to use for agriculture, housing, tourism and other needs. Using much of the land for agriculture may help to dramatically improve Gaza's economy, but water issues need to be carefully considered in this dry region. It will need to be decided whether to turn the large, luxurious homes into homes for low-income families, which would be structurally very different, or to use the large homes for governmental and non-governmental institutes, research centers, business centers, a university, social or sport clubs, or even hotels to encourage tourism. Another option would be to sell the properties to those who can afford them, with the understanding they would be used for tourism development, and then to use the income generated from these sales to build low-income housing in another part of Gaza. A third party could be extremely useful in facilitating such a process.

There are several appropriate organizations that may be able to facilitate a transition. For example, there is the Maine-based Seeds of Peace. This courageous program has been in operation for several years, bringing young Israelis and Palestinians together at summer camps in which they learn the difficult art of coexistence. By now the graduates of this visionary undertaking are in the hundreds, many of whom are young professionals on both sides of the Green Line. With the help of other organizations and the international community, I can't think of a more qualified party to take joint charge of the soon to be former settlements.

There are several other U.N. and nongovernmental international organizations that are genuinely keen on nurturing the peace process that could be engaged in the transfer or transformation of these assets instead of destroying them.

Now that the march of events is positive again, we need to swiftly move forward before the hardliners on both sides have a chance to derail the peace process, as they have so frequently done in the past. Let us revive and implement Isaacson's excellent proposal. I am sure there are international organizations that are more than ready. Let's give them an over-due chance.