Stop the killing, start the talking
By Leonard Marcus and Raja Kamal
The Boston Globe
March 30, 2002

AT A CERTAIN point in the course of a conflict, it is useful to state the choices in the most basic of terms. The situation in the Middle East is now desperate enough to enlist lessons from other domains of high-stakes conflict. Conflict at its root is fundamentally personal. Grasping the deeper significance of that dynamic can be a potent angle for engaging the sides when all else is failing.

It is time to face the stark choice between killing and talking. There is an opportunity now to recast the enemy as death itself, and to forge an alliance that allows the two leading figures to shape their legacy and their enduring triumph around reconciliation.

Talking while killing has not worked. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel has simultaneously engaged in bland diplomacy while pursuing military incursions. The killing undermined the credibility of the diplomatic efforts. Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, too, has lauded the importance of negotiating a peaceful resolution while suicide bombers target ed civilian locations. The bombers undermined the legitimacy of Arafat's efforts, rendering him isolated and vulnerable.

Killing while talking also has not worked. The strategies pursued by both sides are not achieving their objectives. Palestinians are no closer to achieving statehood. Israelis are no closer to achieving increased security. Neither can produce convincing evidence for the wisdom of the status quo.

Killing does provide short-term advantages. Political benefits are derived from rallying popular opinion in support of revenge murder. Whether it be a terrorist strike or a targeted killing, downtrodden people can be convinced that their lot is improved if someone on the other side pays the price. The killing has become a tool of intimidation.

The problem with this game is that every new casualty breeds a new cadre of surviving family, close friends, and bitter communities who believe less in the possibilities for peace and more in the inevitability of further killings.

The jump-start to talking does not require either side to recognize or to meet one another. The words are not a retreat from advancing the rights of their people. This plan is straightforward, and yet its impact on the region and its people would be compelling.

This step forward asks both Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon to give a speech one week from tomorrow. The speech is uncomplicated, only five sentences. Each leader is asked to read the speech, take no questions, and make no further remarks. The speech reads as follows:

''Our peoples have experienced months of painful killing. This killing has neither enhanced our security nor our well-being, and it is unlikely that we will achieve those objectives while continuing on our current path. There are numerous economic, health, educational, and societal benefits that we can achieve if we return to talking with one another. We must regard this choice between killing and talking as one that we ultimately make together, and one for which we must take mutual responsibility. While there are many differences, there are also many similarities amongst our peoples in culture, beliefs, histories, aspirations and in way of life, all of which can help us reach beyond our divides to unite us - as a people - committed to finding ways to live side-by-side with dignity, peace and security in a region that we ultimately must learn to share.''

The picture of each of these men simultaneously reading the identical speech would have a powerful impact upon peoples in the region.

A huge opportunity has recently opened in the Middle East. Arab leaders meeting in Beirut just offered to normalize relations with Israel as part of a comprehensive peace plan. This is a time-limited offer, and its capacity to sway sentiments in the region is a distinct matter of consideration for all sides.

History reminds us that eventually, all wars end. Even the 100 Years War eventually ended. The question now is, how many people are going to perish before this current chapter of violence concludes? Do the people of the region have to wait for a catastrophe with thousands of casualties to shock their leaders back to the table?

Those future casualties - now living and able to voice their concerns - have a stake today in stopping the killing and starting the talking.

Leonard J. Marcus is director of the Program for Health Care Negotiation and Conflict Resolution at the Harvard School of Public Health. Raja Kamal is director of New Initiatives at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.