It seems surreal to remember that only last year an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement seemed not only possible but likely. What has happened since then is an unmitigated disaster for the people on both sides of the divide.
The current confrontation between Israel and the Palestinians has been termed by strategists a low-intensity conflict, a situation in which neither side makes full use of its military capability to get the other to succumb.
There are voices in Israel calling for the use of greater military might to eradicate, once and for all, the daily threats we face.
These are ignored by the government of Israel, not because Israel does not possess the capacity, but because it adopted a profound and basic strategic decision.
Prior to the Oslo Accords of 1993, the region was characterised as a zero-sum situation, which dictated that what is good for me must be bad for you, and vice versa.
Everything in a zero-sum scenario is achieved at the expense of the other side, and to achieve tactical and strategic aims, the other party must suffer. Such a reality is crucially one of perpetual conflict.
The Oslo Accords relegated the zero-sum approach to history, bringing in its place a totally different situation in which there are positive benefits for both sides. As the policy adviser in those years to the then (and present) Foreign Minister, Mr Shimon Peres, I can testify personally to his criss-crossing the world raising money for the Palestinians, and can bear personal witness to the immense change in thinking we underwent at that time.
We visited almost every European capital, pleading with heads of government and industry to invest in the Palestinian economy, in the understanding that the Palestinian people had to benefit materially from the new peace. This understanding still exists.
That turnabout, that sea change, has dictated Israeli policy from the signing of the agreements with the Palestinians in 1993 until today.
Israel's unambiguous strategic aim is to end the conflict with the Palestinians and to reach a stable, just and comprehensive peace with them. We fully understand that the stability, prosperity and welfare of the two peoples must be predicated on a political arrangement acceptable to both sides.
And indeed Israel has tried to do all in its power to bring about a final political arrangement, through a series of interim agreements which brought about mutually agreed transfer of territory and direct Palestinian control of 97 per cent of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza, and most recently, the acceptance of the ground-breaking proposals tabled at Camp David.
Accompanying this process, we found not only goodwill and unbridled optimism, but also cruel acts of terror such as suicide bombings.
Does this mean that the strategic aim of the Palestinian leadership is not the attainment of a final peace agreement? We would like to believe and hope that this is not the case. We want to believe that the Palestinians, like ourselves, are seriously interested in ending the bloody conflict between us.
But if both sides share the same strategic goal, then why are we not getting there? In our view, this is not a result of differing strategic aims, but rather as the result of a tactical move by the Palestinians to maximise gains from Israel. This may well have the opposite effect.
Here is not the place to review the fluctuations of the peace process since the Oslo Accords were signed. Suffice it to turn but one year back, when far-reaching American proposals to end the conflict, endorsed by the EU, were placed on the negotiating table.
These included the establishment of two states, Israel and Palestine, in the area between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river; equations for the exchange of territory; a solution to the tragic issue of the Palestinian refugees; ideas for resolving the seemingly intractable question of Jerusalem; and the end of the conflict between our two peoples.
These were very far from being simple propositions for the Israelis and they would definitely not have garnered overwhelming support within Israeli society. They evidently held great dilemmas for the Palestinians too. Yet it is obvious that in any negotiation process, neither side will attain its full aims. Painful compromises are necessary.
Even were we to accept the view that the proposals were totally unacceptable to the Palestinian leadership, we cannot understand why they did not advance counter-proposals.
Tragically, instead of addressing these issues pragmatically and building a final agreement around them, the Palestinians turned to violence.
This is not an Israeli analysis or viewpoint, but one espoused by Palestinian leaders themselves. Thus, for example, the Palestinian Minister of Communications stated publicly in Gaza last December that this intifada was already planned ever since Mr Arafat's return from Camp David, where he had stood up to President Clinton in the heart of America and firmly rejected the American terms for an agreement.
Apparently, ordinary Palestinians simply did not know the extent to which the gap between the negotiating positions had narrowed. There had been little or no effort to promote the all-important aspect of education for peace.
Thus, for example, Palestinian schoolbooks, published just prior to the outbreak of the recent violence, made no reference to the peace process or even to the very existence of Israel, referred to every Israeli city or region as part of Palestine and totally ignored the need for coexistence.
In short, the public debate over the issues, which had been raging in Israel and contributed to the tragic assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, was absent in the Palestinian territories.
The frustration within Palestinian society must be seen in that context. Societies can grapple successfully with dilemmas only if they are aware of the complexities of the issues under consideration. When the peace process restarts, this aspect must be high on the agenda.
One of the major characteristics of the current confrontation is that it is not confined solely to acts of physical violence, but today encompasses the international political arena, the media and world public opinion. However, if there are any thoughts within Palestinian society to make this arena the central one, they should be dispelled.
Firstly, the only viable solution to the conflict is one that has been worked out between the parties themselves. Any solution imposed from the outside is doomed to failure.
Secondly, attempts to manipulate media reports to blame Israel for the current situation and present it as the good guys against the bad are counter-productive.
These accusations merely serve to alienate the only foreign public that crucially matters to the Palestinian cause: the Israeli public, and especially those of us dedicated to peace.
The attempts by some of our neighbours to trivialise the Holocaust and reintroduce the despicable Zionism/racism concept at the forthcoming UN Conference on Racism in Durban, damage future prospects for peace even more than they damage the actual conference.
The UN itself unambiguously rejected that notorious concept a decade ago.
I could have enumerated here, and elaborated on, any number of well-founded charges made against the Palestinians. However, I see little purpose in concentrating all my efforts into showing how good we are and how bad they are.
Surely in any situation of disagreement, each side is convinced of its own infallibility. Such activity signifies a return to the zero sum scenario, which is a recipe for perpetuating the conflict.
I believe two things are now called for urgently. First, a major effort to rebuild trust rather than continuing the endless recriminations over occupation (which could have been behind the Palestinians by now), use of force (Israel will continue to exercise its right and duty to defend its citizens), or lack of will to negotiate (our hand remains outstretched for peace).
Secondly a full, concerted and ongoing effort to stop the violence and arrest the extremists responsible for the daily shootings, mortars, car bombs and suicide missions, not just one-off statements issued after terrorist atrocities.
The framework for moving forward already exists in Senator Mitchell's report, which both sides have accepted.
If the primary aim of any political leadership is full consensus within society, then peace will never be attained.
There will always be extremists and dissenters in both our societies who cannot be satisfied and who will work to undermine any peace process.
They must not be allowed to dictate the state of play, for both sides have suffered too much and the continuation of the conflict works in favour of none of us.
All public opinion polls in Israel show that despite the intense hostilities, the vast majority of Israelis still fervently desire a return to negotiations.
The previous trust and optimism on both sides of the divide may well be rekindled once the violence is behind us.
As Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said this week: "There is no military solution to the conflict, only a political solution at whose basis must lie a reconciliation between the two peoples."
Mark Sofer is ambassador of Israel to Ireland