The Clock is Ticking

IN JULY I TRAVELED TO THE Middle East at the invitation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). The Palestinian refugee camps in the Israeli-occupied territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are administered by UNRWA, so I had the opportunity to spend time in the communities where the intifada -- the Palestinian uprising -- has been most active.

Accompanying me was Charles Kimball, the Middle East program director for the National Council of Churches. Together we traveled extensively throughout Israel and the newly proclaimed state of Palestine, meeting with Palestinians and Israelis, both community leaders and ordinary people -- all searching for some resolution to the anguishing conflict which has claimed so many lives. -- Jim Wallis

THE ROAD FROM BEN GURION AIRPORT to Jerusalem began to tell the story: Lively conversation among the six passengers in our taxi suddenly stopped as we approached the place where, only five days before, a young Palestinian had seized the steering wheel of an Israeli bus and deliberately plunged it off the road into a deep ravine. Fifteen people died; many others were seriously injured.

Our taxi, like all other vehicles on the highway, slowed as we passed. Numerous brightly colored wreaths marked the spot of the crash. Ten cars had stopped on the shoulder; curious, disbelieving, and angry people peered over the low guard rail, pointing to the crash site below.

Since our return, the bus incident has been overshadowed by events surrounding the abduction of Sheikh Obeid, the tragic killing of Lt. Col. William Higgins, and convoluted multi-national hostage negotiations. Such is the story of the Middle East. One tragedy eclipsed by another.

But these are not isolated events; they must be understood in a larger context. The hostage crisis is not unrelated to the bus incident. All are part of a complicated web of tragedy and misperception. Though each event may flourish and then fade from the news in the United States, the tragedies are all remembered and catalogued in the Middle East. Within each episode are important clues pointing us to the central, unresolved issues.

The "bus incident" came up repeatedly in our numerous conversations with a wide spectrum of Israelis and Palestinians. The divergent interpretations of this tragic event symbolize the disconnected perceptions of reality shared by Israelis and Palestinians. Among Israeli and American Jews, the sense of personal identification with the victims of this tragedy was clear and striking. Such horrible events are not reserved for someone else. The Jerusalem Post's lead editorial on July 12 captured the sentiment: "Israel Aboard Bus 405."

The event is interpreted in the context of a long history of suffering and insecurity. Several people summed up their evaluation with these words: "You see, this is what we are up against! How can Israel make peace with people who want to destroy us?"

Many Palestinians also spoke of the bus wreck as a terrible event. While indicating regret at the loss of lives, sharply different interpretations were voiced. They viewed the incident largely in terms of the suffering and repression experienced by Palestinians today.

Several suggested that this was a predictable response by an individual who could no longer stand to see friends and loved ones humiliated, beaten, shot, or imprisoned on a daily basis. They wondered aloud why more individuals had not "snapped" under the pressures created by military occupation. Some viewed the attack on the bus as an ominous foreshadowing of a future nobody wants.

In contrast to Israeli interpretation, this kind of violent attack is clearly not the norm. While groups of rock-throwing youths have grabbed media attention, the large majority of Palestinians have engaged in nonviolent, collective actions such as commercial strikes, boycotts of Israeli products, and defiance of curfews.

Last spring Palestinians created a new form of nonviolent action: They refused to comply with Israeli policy on daylight savings time. For several weeks, Palestinians operated on "Palestine time." Smiling, slightly impish grins were in evidence as Palestinians shared stories of self-empowerment this adaptation made possible. Many Palestinians warned, however, that violent actions by people who feel they have nothing to lose and little to live for may well become more frequent if the Israelis continue to reject the Palestinian offer for a negotiated settlement.

THE CLEAR CONSENSUS among the Palestinians with whom we met -- from sophisticated academics, community leaders, and lawyers to taxi drivers and young boys (shebab) in refugee camps -- is that the time for a peace settlement is now. Palestinians understand the 21-month-long intifada as a multi-faceted process of national empowerment. Intifada -- generally translated as "uprising" -- literally means "shaking off," as in the shaking off of sand from one's sandals.

That the Palestinians have employed this word instead of a more predictable word for "revolution" is itself instructive. They perceive the intifada as a collective act whereby the 1.7 million Palestinian Muslims and Christians living under military occupation for 22 years are saying, "Enough! We are taking charge of our own destiny. We are finished with Israeli control of our lives. We will shake off this occupation and pursue self-determination."

Palestinians from various walks of life also define the intifada as a process moving toward peaceful co-existence with Israel. They stress that the intifada has been the catalyst enabling the Palestinian leadership in the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) to take the steps of recognizing Israel, renouncing the use of terrorism, and affirming United Nations Resolution 242 as the basis for negotiation.

The United States responded to these constructive steps by opening and sustaining a dialogue with the PLO in Tunis, but people in the occupied territories are growing impatient with the continuing intransigence of Prime Minister Shamir and the deeply divided national unity government in Israel. Palestinians spoke of the "historic compromise" they were offering; some wondered aloud how long their community could continue extending the offer of a peace settlement while having to endure the indignities and physical brutality of the occupation policies.

Conversations with Israeli academics, political leaders, peace activists, and citizens at large reveal stark differences in their understanding of these same developments. Most Israelis still identify the intifada as a form of war and, consequently, support Shamir's continuing insistence that the intifada must end before any process leading toward negotiations can commence.

Intellectually, most Israelis acknowledged the thrust of Palestinian self-understanding of the intifada. But another reality, a deeper reality, serves to override intellectual understanding. The long history of persecution, bitter conflict, and harsh, threatening rhetoric have so reinforced the sense of immediate danger and persecution among Israelis that they interpret youngsters confronting Israeli soldiers with stones in a refugee camp or the extremist act of an individual seizing control of a passenger bus as normative.

Along with these various perceptions, a potentially positive theme was echoed by almost all Israelis, namely: The status quo is untenable. For the minority on the extreme Right, this means taking steps to secure permanent Israeli control over what they consider Judea and Samaria. For the clear majority of Israelis, however, there is a growing awareness -- articulated publicly by people on the Left and in the center -- that, sooner or later, Israel must negotiate some type of land-for-peace settlement with the Palestinians.

Palestinians readily acknowledged that the two communities were far apart in their perception and experience of the current dynamics. One prominent Palestinian put it succinctly: "The greatest failure of our intifada is that we have not communicated effectively to the Israelis what we are doing. We have failed to make clear that this is a process of self-empowerment and a process that makes a negotiated peace settlement possible."

THE CLOCK IS TICKING IN THIS VOLATILE region. This moment when compromise and negotiation appear most possible will not linger indefinitely. It is also clear that people in both communities (as well as many in the Jewish and Palestinian diaspora) deeply desire peace and security for themselves and their children.

There is a discernible symmetry in the hopes, dreams, fears, and experiences of the two communities. And yet, there remains a chasm between them.

Israelis and Palestinians with whom we met offered different scenarios for possible movement forward. These ranged from the desire to see some dramatic, Sadat-like initiative (from Arafat, or Arafat and several key Arab leaders) to U.S.-sponsored pre-negotiation meetings between Israelis, Palestinians, and possibly representatives from neighboring states.

The common theme in the various schemes is the need for some type of serious, substantial, and direct conversation between recognized leaders in the two communities. The best way to begin addressing the major points of disconnection is through direct human encounter that challenges the images and stereotypes of the "other" and begins to put a human face on one's perceived enemy. No one expressed great hope that a dramatic breakthrough was likely. But meaningful progress is possible -- and urgently needed. And most people continue to believe that the United States can and should play a significant role as facilitator.

Failure to move forward now will ensure that deep-seated fears and insecurities in both communities will prevail over the desire to take limited risks for peace. Concentrating most of our attention and energy on hostage negotiations is understandable, but there is a danger that we will again miss the point. With no discernible movement on the basic conflict, there may well be more hostages seized; there will surely be more tragic episodes like the bus wreck.

The hostage negotiation process does illustrate that complex negotiations -- even with those regarded as enemies or as terrorists -- are possible. If there is the political will for a mutually acceptable solution, diplomacy and constructive negotiations can succeed.

In the course of our visit in Israel and the occupied territories, we passed by the site of the bus accident three more times. Each time we drove by this spot, we noticed a few more cars, a few more wreaths, and a few more people were present than the time before. By the time of our final trip, people from 20 cars were standing at the guard rail, pointing into the ravine in horror and disbelief. Reflecting on this scene, we too shuddered at the thought of a future nobody wants.

There are now two conflicting possibilities. One is that the Israelis and Palestinians will eventually sit down and talk, until they find a solution both sides can live with. The other is that of escalating violence and a downward spiral of deterioration and destruction.

Which possibility results will depend on two factors: the quality of internal leadership in both Israeli and Palestinian communities, and the political will demonstrated in the behavior of key actors in the international community. The clock is ticking.

Jim Wallis is editor-in-chief of Sojourners. Charles Kimball was the Middle East program director for the National Council of Churches when this article appeared.