This past month, for the first time in what seems like a very long time, an Arab made a mockingly friendly reproach of an American. "Have you broken into my desk?" joked the Arab. But the Arab was not just any Arab and the joke, not just any joke. The ensuing conversation between Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman may have set the stage for a historic agreement between the Arab states and Israel. Abdullah, known as an Arab-nationalist, went on to outline a general plan of normalization of relations with Israel in return for reverting to the pre-1967 borders. The proposal represents the most recent and serious effort to establish both peace and normalization to the region. But it seems odd, and perhaps unfortunate, that although the Arabs-oft perceived as bloody anti-Israel fanatics by the American media-are willing to at least sit down at the bargaining table, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has little interest in negotiating, much less listening.

Sharon has drawn criticism over the last month for his hard-line approach toward relations with Arab nations and the recent escalation of violence. A recent poll conducted in Israel showed citizens increasingly dissatisfied with Sharon, with his approval rating dropping from 49 percent to 42 percent. Even the Bush administration, rarely a voice of compromise, has grown weary of Sharon's reactionary approach to Palestine and his failure to listen. Sharon just recently agreed to dropping his statement that seven days of peace would be necessary before negotiations could begin, although he has shown in his actions that killing must come before negotiations.

While Sharon may be the wrong man to lead Israel into a normalization of relations and restore peace, men like Thomas Friedman seem to have a more realistic perception of how to handle the situation in the Middle East. Friedman, who has close ties with Israel, understands that Israel is fighting a war it cannot, and will not, win. It is impossibly outnumbered and surrounded. There are two resulting modes of continuance: 1) seek some form of peace or 2) keep killing Palestinians until Arabs back off. The problem with the latter is clear: killing Arabs will never scare someone who plans on walking into Israel and blowing themselves up. When more sophisticated weapons are obtained just a few Palestinians will be enough to destroy much of Israel. Friedman argues: "If this uncompromising view becomes dominant in Israel and among American Jews, then cash in your Israel Bonds right now-the country is doomed."

Arab resentment must disappear, or at least be checked, in order for a normalization of relations with Israel. The only way to do this is to sit down at the bargaining table with them and examine the current state of affairs continues. The advances in technology allowing for satellite television to reach many Arabs has led to a one sided portrayal of Israel that could only incite hatred in the minds of Arabs. They see their people attacked by Israelis in American-built fighter planes and helicopters. Houses razed. Injured Palestinians being rushed to hospitals. This past weekend in retaliation for two suicide bombs that killed 14 Israelis, Yasser Arafat's oceanside office was attacked with missiles and, according to witnesses, decimated. The offices were a symbol of stability for Palestine. It's cowardly acts like this that can only end up hurting, not helping, Israel's cause.

Prince Abdullah's offer has already been well received by many Arab nations, the European Union, the United Nations and, finally, after a long delay, the Bush administration. His intentions seem to be sincere. Some people see the offer as a way of shifting U.S. public opinion, which has been highly critical of Saudi Arabia since 15 of the Sept. 11 terrorists were of Saudi origin, toward a more favorable vision of Saudi Arabia. This argument is partly valid because of the importance of oil sales from Saudi Arabia to the U.S.. Another critique claims that by making such a proposal Saudi Arabia is holding off a U.S. attack on Iraq and Saddam Hussein, quelling the American pro-war stalwarts.

But the greatest critique of all is that the plan is unreasonable: without a "buffer zone" Israel is defenseless, faultfinders say. But how does a buffer zone protect a nation from suicide bombers? How would a buffer zone protect Israel from long-range missiles that Palestinian militant groups are acquiring and developing? The Israeli claim to the land acquired in 1967 seems about as weak as the argument of its military importance. Perhaps the most compelling argument against the proposal is that Arab nations will not honor the agreement. But they currently assert that normalization of relations have to be recognized by Israel, if only tentatively, in order for relations ever to return to normal. Israel's military might is such that any break in the agreement could easily be responded to.

The death toll is at such a high number-and continuously increasing-that at this point any proposal will be given attention. "I think the vast majority of people on both sides of the line are looking for a way out," said Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., democrat of Delaware and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, to The New York Times. Biden is optimistic, but sees the chances of the Saudi proposal being agreed to as "slim." However, nothing will come of the current proposal until Ariel Sharon can check his thirst for killing and agree to sit down and negotiate.

There was a time when negotiation and curbing extremist actions were the norm. In the mid-1990s Yitzhak Rabin made strides to take on the Jewish settlers, while Yasser Arafat aimed to quell Hamas. At the same time, eight Arab countries made liaisons with Israel. Peace and normalization of relations seemed headed in the right direction. Moderates reigned over extremists. And then it all fell apart. But now moderates have another opportunity-one that comes from a surprising source. And, no matter the intentions behind the proposal, it is essential that all sides give it a look and use it as a platform for future negotiations. The Bush administration must do more than voice mild support for the plan, they need to give strong backing to the idea of negotiations. There needs to be a realization that there are plenty of people to be killed. Killing, it seems, can last forever. Hopefully, newfound peace can too.