Peace Requires Compromise

To the editors:

Five thousand miles from the Middle East conflict, it's easy to take recourse in one-sided rhetoric such as that of "How Wye Failed the Palestinians" (Nov. 10). Bishara and Fahmawi reveal an astonishing lack of understanding of the basis for negotiation, despite their claim to seek a just peace. The essence of a peace agreement is compromise. Those who live in the Middle East, both Arab and Jew, unerstand that while Oslo and Wye are certainly not perfect, they are steps on A peaceful compromise. In a process of compromise, each side must make efforts to understand the other, Bishara and Fahmawi criticiz Israel's "Overstated security imperative." Perhaps they have never met one of the hundreds "wounded" in a terror attack, who will suffer handicap and disfigurement for the rest of his life-not to mention known one of the dead. Although we've never experienced the frustration of waiting in lines at checkpoints, and we've never been in a Palestinian village when the Israeli army comes to destory the house of suspected terrorist, we understand that these incidents are difficult, even intolerable, for Plestinians. These are the concerns that they bring to the bargaining table, and we do not attempt to dismiss them.

It's very easy to propose one-sided solutions from the comfort and safety of Cambridge. The rejection of Oslo, which acknowledged a basis for negotiation by all involved in the peace process in the Middle East, causes no shock waves on the Charles. In the Middle East, however, this Rejectionist position is held only by Hamas and the Most right-wing Israeli political parties. Compromises are not one-sided, and only by avoiding Simple rejectionist roles and understanding the perspective of our negotiating partners can we work together to reach a modus vivendi more suitable for all. BETH GOLDSTEIN'99   MIRIAM B. GOLDSTEIN'99   Nov. 22,1998 The writers live in Jerusalem.