PERSPECTIVE ON ARAB-ISRAELI PEACE : Side by Side, Two Paths to Change : There’s much that both communities can do now, separately, to prepare for the inevitable: a shared future.

With the Gulf War over, it is urgent that we Palestinans and Israelis look self-critically at our situation. A reassessment of the Palestinian and Israeli positions now may help to visualize the light at the end of the tunnel and prevent the chaos and anomic violence that threaten to prevail.

For the Palestinians, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s decision to be associated with President Saddam Hussein has served to link their leadership with his destiny. Although there was overwhelming popular Palestinian support for President Hussein, the PLO leadership broke an elementary rule of democratic decision-making when it did not seek the endorsement of the Palestine National Council, which functions as a parliament, for support of Iraq. A more comprehensive process, reflecting the democratic institutional practices the Palestinians declared in 1988, is more likely to yield wise results.

Palestinians did not endorse President Hussein’s action in Kuwait. They did, however, support his opposition to foreign intervention in Arab affairs. The other two primary reasons for the Palestinians’ support were President Hussein’s willingness to confront Israel and his ability to make the occupation of Palestine an international issue again. Despite the appearance of their political stance, Palestinians support the principles of territorial integrity, unacceptability of territorial acquisition by force, opposition to naked aggression, the right to self-determination and respect for international law.

The PLO must widen its democratization process, not only to involve the institutional bodies of the government-in-exile, but also to demonstrate a genuine effort to actually represent the views of the Palestinians all over the world. This is not unrealizable politically.

In most parts of the world, Palestinians committed to their nation could register to vote, thus making their representatives accountable to them.

In the West Bank and Gaza, Palestinians could make use of the tremendous energy of the intifada in organizing elections--with or without the consent of the Israeli military government. With some imagination, the elections could be conducted unilaterally by the occupied population, with the assistance of the international community and the monitoring of specialized agencies and groups, such as those that have successfully functioned in the Philippines, Nicaragua, Namibia and Eastern Europe.

The first stage, voter registration for all Palestinians, could begin immediately at mosques and churches. At the same time, enterprising Palestinians in the Diaspora would contribute to financial support of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, thus ensuring that neither dependency on foreign aid nor pressures from other Arab governments would weaken the independence of the Palestinian government. Such financial support would probably inspire others to support the buildup of an infrastructural core of institutions (schools, hospitals, housing, and so forth) needed for firmly establishing the state.

The democratically elected leaders should have restrictions on their terms of office, but former officials could continue to play an important advisory role. This would allow for the infusion of new ideas added to the wisdom of experience to meet the coming challenges more successfully.

Along with this process of choosing representatives and leaders, there could be a referendum on the acceptability of the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. This would be an important aspect of establishing the credibility of the Palestinian leadership.

As for the Israelis, the moment of truth will be in showing that the restraint and moderation practiced during the Gulf War will not vanish when searching for peace with their neighbors. There will be a unique opportunity for the Jewish people to sit with all of the Arab states and the Palestinians and contribute to a process of building lasting peace in the entire region. If security is the primary concern of a traumatized Jewish nation, this will be the time to ask for the necessary guarantees; clearly, the Jordan River is no longer the secure border it was once thought to be. Perhaps it will be the role of the Palestinians to deliver non-aggression guarantees from the Arab world at large.

Granted that an elected Palestinian leadership would seek the right of self-determination in living peacefully side by side with Israel; how would the “only democracy in the Middle East” react to this idea of a democratic leadership next door?

Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir’s government has been receding more and more from its declared intention to allow democratic elections among the Palestinians. Why will it not guarantee the Palestinians the same procedures and openness that are a given in elections in Israel itself?

For Israel’s citizens, this is a crucial time of reflection and reassessment, if it is indeed a top priority to live in peace and security with Arab neighbors. If, however, Shamir’s territorial ambitions prevail and it becomes clear that annexation of “Judea and Samaria” and, consequently, denial of equal rights to the Palestinian population, is the preferred option, Shamir will be severely judged by the international community as well as his own people and, hopefully, be replaced by a more moderate leader.

By firmly pursuing their nonviolent path toward a two-state solution, the Palestinians can become masters of their own destiny and also uncover Israeli tendencies toward intransigence. Israel should not keep stalling until it is pressured by international power politics to come up with an attractive and mutually beneficial offer for the peaceful resolution of our conflict. So far, the two-state concept has not appeared on PLO material or in the official textbooks of the Israeli Ministry of Education. This demonstrates that moderation has often been used as a facade for what are really uncompromising intentions.

At this stage, both nations are confronted with an unprecedented degree of hatred and hostility. To make the positive potential of our societies prevail, to remind ourselves that we are the most educated peoples in our region and to be mutually cognizant of our history of suffering and persecution, we need a change of attitude that may only come from incentives from the outside. We will need all the help that governments and people of goodwill can give.

Once our nations and elected leadership have embraced the true principles of democracy, we know that peace will prevail. History has shown that democratic states do not fight wars between themselves; hopefully, we will not become the exception to such a powerful and fundamental principle.