When Egyptian President Anwar Sadat made his historic visit to Jerusalem in 1977, he declared that the essence of the Arab-Israeli conflict is psychological.

Bridge-making literature on the Middle East helps as a background for peace-making. Political commentators may choose to arouse fears or heal emotional wounds. Prophetic thinkers often have personal contacts with and compassion for the people on both sides of the divide.

Writers should recognize the parallel suffering: Israelis heading into the unknown and Palestinians stuck with an occupation of the territories. Israel fears the future and Palestine the present. Israel dreads being seen as a South African apartheid state and residents of the West Bank and East Jerusalem witness their land ownership shrinking.

Medieval ideas on resolving problems permeate Arab politics. The growing turmoil in the region scares Israel, but Arab fratricide offers military advantage to Tel Aviv for the moment.

Selective perception: Many Arabs still refer to Israel as the “Zionist entity” and Jewish writers label Palestinian “freedom fighters” as “terrorists.” Palestinians consider the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea “Occupied Palestine” and Israelis call it the “Promised Land.” Palestinians see no demographic problem in returning 6 million refugees to Israel and Israelis ignore the need to acknowledge the rights of the displaced for compensation.

Moderates are suspect. Many consider the American Task Force for Palestine, a pro-peace movement with friendly Jewish contacts in the United States, a sellout to the Zionists. J Street, a growing peace movement of liberal American Jews, is accused of shady intentions by “Israel-first” groups.

The mood in Israel today is for “conflict management.” After winning the recent elections, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declares the region unfit for peace-making. Hard-line Israelis defend their reluctance to make peace now “while the region is in turmoil.” Is building settlements preparing the climate for peace?

Things are changing, albeit too slowly. Over the past few decades, hundreds of Israelis and Palestinians, inside and outside the Holy Land, have discovered the magic of looking the adversary in the eye and talking to him or her. The 2003 Geneva Peace Initiative, outlining a two-state solution was negotiated by Israelis and Palestinians who became friends through negotiation.

One day, hopefully, Israelis will begin to see the gain from ending their occupation to allow for a two-state solution. Were Israel to normalize relations with the Arabs, Palestinians would be natural partners for Israel. Palestinians would be mediators of business and diplomacy between Tel Aviv and the Arab capitals. Once Palestinians begin to participate with their Jewish neighbors in a regional economic revival, yesterday’s enemies become allies of the future.

As a Lebanese-American who saw Lebanon fragment politically due to inequitable power sharing — when Christians dominated politics for a few decades, I have a message for Israelis. An occupation can turn the most moral of nations into a cruel political system, and it can transform the most disciplined army into an agency of terror. Why not make a deal while it is possible now? The European community can no longer ignore Israeli settlements. The International Criminal Court, which the Palestinians plan to resort to, need not replace the negotiating table.

As for Palestinians, they should unite on a peace agenda in order to mobilize international solidarity and ease the anxiety of the Israeli public about relinquishing power.

If Sadat was right about the pivotal role of fear and anger in the conflict, writers could play a major role in building trust.