Israelis must reject hawkish governments and Palestinians deny zealotry if these parties are to avoid squandering yet another opportunity to achieve peace in the region.

In its over 60 years of existence, Israel has consistently used an iron fist whenever it felt in danger or when it strategized to preemptively attack its adversaries. The most recent tragedy and destruction in Gaza is one among many examples, adding yet another sad chapter to the Israel-Arab confrontation and wars.

The tragedy of Gaza, however, is two-faceted. One is the occupier, Israel; the other is the problems internal to Gaza, including the radical/liberal and secular/religious divides, and the growing influence of radical Islamic fundamentalism. The anger caused by Israel’s massive invasion of Gaza, however, has increasingly obscured these internal problems.

Right wing Israelis and their supporters like to reiterate what Abba Eban, a former Israeli Foreign Minister, said in the 1970s: "Arabs do not miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." Even though this was said in a different context and by a better man than those who now quote it, it is not a fair and accurate account of Palestinians or Arab-Israeli relations.

Beginning with the discussions of the “Palestine Question” in the UN in 1947, Arab representatives did a very poor diplomatic job, not only in rejecting the Majority Plan (Partition of Palestine), but even the much better Minority Plan proposing a single confederation of two peoples with equal rights. But even if the “Arabs” (then a group of mostly poor countries that had been released from colonial yoke) had agreed with the approved partition plan, this would not necessarily mean that Israel would have stayed within the boundaries set by the UN. Annexations of the Demilitarized Zones after the 1949 armistice by Israel and its subsequent land confiscations are cases in point.

No doubt the Palestinians missed opportunities for peace, but so did the Israelis. Following Israel’s astounding success in the Six-Day War of 1967, the country had the opportunity to triumphantly accept the UNSC Resolution 242, return to the pre-1967 borders and sign peace treaties with its neighbours. Yet, not only did it refuse to do so, but it kept a strong grip on the West Bank and Gaza, and annexed the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. This laid the foundations for subsequent wars and confrontations.

The wrong policies of the PLO leadership in Jordan and Lebanon in the 1970s, radical Palestinians resorting to international terrorism and hijacking, and the policy of the “rejectionist” front, were all missed opportunities for mobilizing global support for the Palestinian cause. But Israel also missed other opportunities for peace and security by refusing to negotiate with Palestinians until the eruption of the first Intifada in 1988, which proved to be its worst nightmare and mobilized world support for the Palestinian cause.

When Israel finally sat for negotiations with the Palestinians, leading to the Madrid, Oslo I, and Oslo II accords, the situation changed for a while. But Israel soon missed another opportunity by not respecting the terms of the agreements and continuing the illegal expansion of settlements in the Occupied Territories. Despite their many flaws, the Oslo Accords had instigated hopes that these two peoples could live together in the same land. Subsequent peace negotiations at the Wye River, Sharm el-Sheikh, Camp David (II), and Taba, all organized under the pressure of the Clinton Administration, pointed to the extent of compromises needed from both sides.

When Hamas, taking advantage of the Palestinian Authority’s corruptions and inept policies, won the election and took over Gaza, Israel was caught by surprise and began punishing Gazans by imposing a most restrictive siege. Not learning from the lessons of the 2006 Lebanon war, the most recent invasion only made Hamas stronger and generated more anger towards Israel.

Many decades into the conflict, radicals of both sides have not yet fully learned that militarism is no solution. In the early 1920s, believing that the Arab inhabitants of Palestine would resist the Zionist project and would not come to a “voluntary agreement” for establishing a Jewish state in Palestine, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the radical Zionist leader, concluded that only force and military might - that is, the creation of an “Iron Wall” - would eventually make the Palestinians “despair” of resistance, surrender to the Zionist demands, and recognize the existence of their “new powerful neighbour.” For their part, from the inception of the state of Israel, Palestinians and their other Arab neighbours unanimously and continuously rejected any concessions. It took decades after the creation of the very powerful state of Israel for a growing number of Palestinians to consider negotiations with the Israelis as an option. Yet, although a weaker partner, quashed, quelled, and impoverished, they did not surrender.

While a part of Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall policy materialized and “a new powerful neighbour” was established, this policy proved to be wrong in its hope of making Palestinians “despair” and surrender to all Zionists' demands. The Iron Wall of the radical Zionists confronted the Iron Will of the Palestinians. While neither side would give up their main demands (a secure Jewish State for Israelis, and land, right of return, solution of refugee issues, and statehood for Palestinians), neither side can eliminate the other.

The only solution to this conflict is a negotiated settlement. But history has so far shown that peace is not possible as long as hawkish Israeli governments come into power and have the unconditional support of the United States and the Israeli lobby. Likewise, no peace is possible as long as radical Palestinians - in particular, religious zealots and their supporters inside and outside the Palestinian territories - are not ready to recognize the reality of the existence of the state of Israel within the pre-1967 borders.

Israelis should learn that without a negotiated settlement with Palestinians and their Arab neighbours they cannot live in peace and security, and Palestinians should learn that without recognizing Israel within the pre-1967 borders, and without the help and support of progressive and pro-peace Israelis, they will not be able to establish a viable and prosperous secular state for all Palestinians. Peace movements on both sides, while weakened, are still alive. On the day that Ehud Barak ordered the IDF to start the ground offensive, about 10,000 Israeli demonstrators in Tel-Aviv protested the invasion of Gaza.

Moreover, taking into consideration the experience of their Iranian counterparts three decades ago, progressive Palestinians and their supporters worldwide should be seriously heedful of the dangers of a zealot religious state for Palestine. Condemnation of Israel should not equate support for the Islamists and their obscurantist agendas.

Now that the guns are silent for a while, it is time to seriously think about finding a peaceful solution.