The Gaza crisis unfolds as America starts a creative presidency in the face of overwhelming economic challenge, as Israel is about to elect fear-oriented leadership when courage is badly needed, and as Palestinians need to unite through civic empowerment, rather than fighting an asymmetrical war.

Relatives of Palestinian farmer Anwar al-Beram wait outside Nassir hospital in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip January 27, 2009. Israeli fire into the Gaza Strip killed al-Beram on Tuesday, medical workers said, after the reported killing of an Israeli soldier close to the border with the Hamas-ruled territory. REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa

The world expects two parallel miracles to take place in the foreseeable future. President Obama is assigned the miracle of reversing a crisis of confidence in the U.S. economy; the U.S. envoy, George Mitchell, is assigned the miracle of reversing the crisis of confidence in Middle East peace. What are the chances?
The war in Gaza is the last nail in the coffin of what has been a worn-out, discredited and short-sighted peace process. But with a transformed U.S. foreign policy, a fresh initiative for a lasting Arab-Israeli settlement may have a chance to emerge.

The most saddening thing about the tragedy of Gaza may not be the blood spilled, the level of destruction caused or the hatred generated, but rather the missing of yet another historic opportunity to intervene effectively in the Arab Israeli conflict. Effective intervention deals with root causes and the interrelated parts of the conflict.

President Barack Obama is deeply sensitive to the relevance of Gaza to his agenda of change. Obama knows that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only end when the occupation is terminated and when Israel’s future is solidly secured. The new president is well aware that the conflict will only end when Palestinians accept Israelis, and Israelis, in turn, trust Palestinians. Any other Arab agreement of peace with Israel is vulnerable as long as the national aspirations of Palestinians remain blocked.

The ceasefire agreement will further limit the military capacity of Hamas and ease Israeli restrictions on the people of Gaza. But Hamas will soon regenerate military muscle and cash in political credit for its martyrdom. In fighting a superior military power, Palestinians see success in sacrifice, not in the body count of the enemy.

A Palestinian woman, who is a member of al-Athamna family, prepares lunch near the ruins of her destroyed house in Gaza January 27, 2009. Majdi al-Athamna’s house, three neighboring buildings which belonged to his sons and every other property along a kilometre (half-mile) stretch in Abed Rabbo, a village on the outskirts of the city of Gaza, were levelled by Israeli forces. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem

The propaganda war never stops. Israelis claim the moral high ground in all their wars and accuse Palestinians of violating the rules of combat. Israelis measure the morality of fighting by the “surgical” accuracy of targeting the enemy. Palestinians measure immorality of war by the intensity of Israeli collective punishment of their civilians. Israel accuses Palestinians of terrorism; Palestinians accuse Israelis of state terror.
Both sides of the conflict are trapped by a counterproductive political strategy. Israelis are trapped by an occupation which undermines quality of governance and respect of rule of law. Palestinians are trapped by a strategy of risk-prone resistance which slows the pace of their political liberation.

Each side is intent on “teaching” the opponent lessons of justice. Israel “disciplines” the people of Gaza with devastating air strikes. Palestinians intimidate Israelis with feeble rockets which cause damage, fear and occasional loss of life.

Each side considers itself a victim. Palestinians underestimate the existential fear of Israelis, and Israelis underestimate the suffering of Palestinians.

Each side unwittingly delays peace. Extreme Israelis prefer to preserve the status quo to an active search for peace; a lasting settlement requires painful accommodation. Extreme Palestinians are not in a hurry to negotiate a two-state solution. Some Palestinians dream that one day Israel will have to “expire.”

The two sides have become monotonous in rhetoric, predictable in defending their case and simplistic in analysis. Each has chosen a convenient moment in history to identify who started the conflict.

Obama and his team must be aware of the futility of the step-by-step, territory-by-territory, country-by-country, incremental approach to solving a conflict that involves several countries and several interconnected Palestinian communities. How can one separate the issue of Gaza troop evacuation from the problem of expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank? How can the issue of withdrawal from the West Bank be negotiated separately from the issue of the occupation of the Golan Heights in Syria? How can withdrawal of forces from all Palestinian territories take place without massive international investment in a comprehensive social and economic empowerment of the Palestinian refugees?

To break this self-reinforcing cycle of hostility in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the U.S. administration must suggest the basic elements of a region-based, land-for-peace agreement. But this conflict is not only about land for peace. The solution must include Jewish recognition of responsibility for past Palestinian suffering and Arab recognition of responsibility for future Israeli security.