By Michael John Howard

  "Wait! Damn it!" The woman yelled. At the same time she beat her umbrella against the side windows of the bus, not quite hard enough to break the glass but just hard enough to break the struts of the umbrella and make it worthless.

I saw this from inside of that dry, but over-crowded, bus. I was glad to be on board, as were the seventy or so others who had waited in the cold Chicago rain for over fifteen minutes.

The lady in question had run up to the bus just as the last person squeezed themselves in and the doors closed, leaving another half dozen standing on the curb. Now she was left standing in the rain without a usable umbrella.

So, what did she accomplish, other than providing us with momentary amusement at her expense? Not a thing, except to become yet another example of how people have a tendency to commit acts that are not, in the long run, in their own best interests.

She was, by no means, alone in this type of behavior. In fact groups of people, and even nations, do the same thing. They take the one action that will cause the most harm, simply because they don’t take the time to make rational decisions and come up with common sense solutions.

You’ve seen the news stories. A group of soccer fans get so excited by a game that they press up against a balcony railing until it collapses, with several of them getting killed. Why? Because they all wanted a better view of the game.

"Ok," you say, "that’s the mob mentality. Surely governments weigh their actions carefully, taking into consideration every possible eventuality."

Well, not always. Take for instance the apparent determination of the leaders of both Israel and the Palestinian State to sabotage their own chances for peace. While both sides claim to want to move further along the path to peace, they both keep making decisions and taking actions that take them in the opposite direction.

The Palestinians want civil rights and their own homeland. Most are ready to work towards that in a peaceful manner. A few militants, however, seem more willing to build bombs than to build a lasting peace.

The Israelis, as a whole, want exactly the same things. But they have their hard-liners too; people who prefer building a few more houses in formerly Palestinian neighborhoods to working toward finding areas for agreement.

The religion of neither group encourages these behaviors but both sides claim that they only do it for their faith. Each even celebrate those who are killed in the process as martyrs, when they are really only victims.

Nobody wants to take responsibility for their situation or their reactions to it. It’s easier to blame history, or their race, or God, or darned near anyone else for their problems.

If it weren’t raining on her or if the driver had waited just one minute more, she wouldn’t have gotten very wet at all. Of course, it was God with his rain and the driver with his lack of caring that got her drenched. Never mind her temper tantrum and the broken umbrella in her hand.

And what do the governments do? They rattle sabers and they talk tough. They blame each other and protest that they really want peace, but that they can’t get it because the other guys did something first and they have to respond. Besides it’s raining and the bus is pulling away and it’s easier to hit their umbrella on the side of the bus, even though it will get smashed and they will get even wetter.

The problem is that nothing will ever be solved unless someone makes the first move, until someone takes action to get in out of the rain or to find a way to make peace.

Well, here’s a suggestion to solve one of the biggest sticking points of the whole Middle Eastern tragedy, the question of who gets the city of Jerusalem.

What if, instead of either Israel or the Palestinian state taking Jerusalem as their capital, the city was declared an International Heritage Zone, made into an independent city/state, and governed by committee made up of, and elected by, bonified residents of the city?

This committee could control building permits, immigration of non-residents into the city from either Palestine or Israel, and provide a peaceful haven for all of the religions that have sacred sites there.

In the case of sites that were holy to more that one faith, the committee could work to find a way to allow access by all, without damaging the facilities that are already in place. For instance, they would not allow the destruction of a Moslem shrine for the construction of a Jewish or Christian one.

The people of the city could choose whether to live in a culturally isolated neighborhood or in areas that promoted diversity. Either way, the make up of an area would be decided by how the people of that area wanted to live, not dictated by a occupying nation or a terrorist fringe.

What if joint schools were established within the city walls? These schools could employ teachers from all of the communities in the city and could teach every student about the cultures and beliefs of all of the residents. The students, at even the earliest ages, would learn both the similarities and the differences. They would also learn to work and play with each other in peace, something their parents have not had much success at.

What if this shining city was also declared a demilitarized zone, with only the official police to keep order?

There would be no Israeli soldiers and no Palestinian militia. Maybe a few UN advisors, at the start, but eventually a joint city, dedicated to the celebration of the Human Race’s various ways of relating to their creator.

"That won’t work," the pessimist will shout, "they will never agree to that!"

If that’s the case, what if the other countries, the ones who are not directly involved, also make a decision for peace? What if they all, in unison, encourage both sides to come in out of the rain, by cutting back on aid, especially military aid, until they do?

After all, why would anyone object to this plan?

"Because Jerusalem is our holy city, our historic capital," both sides shout in unison.

Oddly enough, both sides would be right, historically. But this is not the past. We are writing our children’s history books now. Wouldn’t it be better to have that history show that we preserved that holy city for all people by letting the governments of both countries meet a just few miles away.

Sure, this is a simple solution to a complex problem. But haven’t the people of the world been out in the rain too long. Don’t we see the stupidity of smashing all our hopes of staying dry just because the simplest solution would mean that we would have to work out a compromise?

The fact is, in most situations, the simplest solution is often the one that is easiest to implement and the most likely to work.

For the lady at the bus stop, if she had contained her anger, she could have had some shelter until the next bus arrived.

And for the people of the Middle East, if they would generate ways of working and living together, they could also preserve the rich heritage that both their peoples possess. They could raise their families without fear that the bus they are riding on will explode or that they will be forced out of their home to be replaced by strangers.

They could also become an example to rest of the world, demonstrating how to find peace and cooperation in what has been the most troubled of regions. They could shine forth the lights provided by the founders of some of the world’s great religions, lights of love and peace and hope.

Wouldn’t it be worth trying a simple new solution? Aren’t we already soaked to the skin?