A mediator shouold consider the parallels between the current Israeli-Palestine crisis and the last bloody years of apartheid South Africa, when it appeared that black and white South Africa were set on a devastatingly never-ending conflict, following spectacular failures of all attempts to broker peace agreements.

The extreme groups on both sides sought more violent solutions to the seemingly intractable conflict, while the majority gravitated, even if admittedly only in their private moments, towards feeling that some kind of compromise on both sides would have to be made if the crippling cycle of violence was to come to an end. Nobody was sure of how much, or whether it was even possible, but deep down the idea of a compromise was starting to take hold. Distrust of the other side was overwhelming. At issue, was whether the other side could be trusted to reciprocate compromises after uncountable disappointments, breakdowns and breaches of paper-thin agreements. But amid the despair, there was a rising feeling (often not articulated) on both sides that violence would not going to lead to a solution, but only to more recriminations, more despair and more hatred.

That was the sense I got in Palestine and Israel - among people on both sides, despite all the actions to the contrary. It appears that many do think that ultimately, more violence is not a solution. The little problem is that many fear the consequences of compromise. There is a fear of giving away too much; that the other side won't match; that if one compromises, one's own supporters will view one as weak. Indeed, it appears that leaders fear rushing ahead of their constituencies.

Perhaps, through the noise of the bombs, angry cries and airspace buzz, the crisis of the Israeli soldier-prisoner could provide the glimmer of a turning point, a fresh opportunity. For starters, by violently retaliating, the Israel's new leaders will prove to their own supporters they are tough. However, rather than striking fear into the hearts of the Palestinians, it is likely to only increase their bitterness, and most probably will unleash another round of angry retribution.

What is now needed on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is for them to, just for one moment, suspend the past and even the present. This is justly difficult. In South Africa in the early nineties, the African National Congress under the leadership of the likes of Nelson Mandela put forward compromises at precisely the moment of greatest despair, all for the sake of moving out of the impasse. These were attacked and rejected by many of their own supporters. However, the ANC leadership held out and tried to convince their angry supporters, though not always very successfully. At the time, FW de Klerk's nationalist government, compromised on some measures, if not on all, to give the momentum for further negotiations. Similarly, many of their own supporters vehemently rejected their compromises as too much.

In the same way, the Israeli government will have to make compromises and make a peace gesture by releasing at least some Palestinians prisoners, for example, women and children. This might be seen in some Israeli circles as weak, but the compromise would be worthwhile. Furthermore, the underlying understanding must be that compromises are inherently messy, that solutions will never satisfy all and that there will never be magic bullet solutions. The U.S. must try to play a more neutral, but supportive role, rather then act the way it does now, which is perceived to be unquestionably behind the Israeli government and implacably against the Palestinians. The larger question in this conflict is how do the different sides rise above deep-seated mistrust of the other. Out of the despair, a solution is still possible.