The Palestinians and the Israelis are in a cycle of murder and revenge. There is a fundamental difference between the two: revenge is a punishment meted out for a murder committed; however, penalizing an entire population in response to a terror attack or to murder is not revenge, but murder per se. Unfortunately, we see the IDF performing - in my name as an Israeli citizen - acts of vengeance almost daily, thus penalizing an entire population, causing despair, revenge, murder and hatred. In their despair, the Palestinians take vengeance against the Israeli population and murder innocent people.

We must ask ourselves if we Israelis are really innocent, after we have allowed our governments since 1967 to go on controlling another nation. The killing of more than 3,000 Palestinians, including women, children and old people by the Israeli defense forces and by Jewish terrorists who were recently apprehended by the Shin Bet, is the main cause of the despair felt by the Palestinian population and the main motive behind their acts of terror.

The people of this region must address some fundamental questions. Indeed, the occupation is terrible, as are killings by the Israeli forces, but does the Palestinian response constitute revenge, or is it simply murder?

If it were genuine revenge, the Palestinians would be searching for those who killed their brethren and targeted them. What in fact is going on is that innocent civilians are being slain. However, the same question should be addressed to the State of Israel. Does Israel only target "ticking bombs" and those who try to kill Israelis, or does it also injure and kill innocent bystanders? If this is the case, the Palestinian and Israeli murderers all belong in the same category.

We must distinguish between Israel's need for security and the Palestinian need for independence. Israel's moves do nothing but generate chaos and spur the Palestinians to hurt Israelis. The acts carried out by Israel do not promise its citizens any security; on the contrary, they serve as a powerful incentive for potential suicide bombers. As for the Palestinians, their choices are doing little to get them any closer to statehood. Many countries, and primarily the U.S., believe that the Palestinians are a nation founded on terror that therefore does not deserve sovereignty.

Don't Sharon and Arafat see this? I am certain they realize this even more clearly than I do. Even though I am not a politician, I can understand their motivations. Sharon is driven by his belief that Jordan is in fact the Palestinian state and that Israel all the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea belongs to Israel. I assume he also believes that the best policy for us is to cause such deep despair among the Palestinians so as to cause many of them to leave the region. Sharon feels it is necessary to stall, and that several hundreds of deaths on either side every year is a small price to pay. He believes that if a Palestinian state is created, it will not be a few hundreds of Israelis that will die but tens of thousands. According to his logic, it is better to sacrifice a few hundreds of people now, rather than tens of thousands later on. This is why Sharon pursued the assassinations during the hudna (cease-fire) and flared up the region, as he had done in his visit to Temple Mount in September 2000.

Arafat believes that Israel is not willing to let the Palestinians establish their own state according to the plan set forth by President Clinton and that it is not ready to give them sovereignty over Temple Mount. He is therefore taking measures against Israel, both actively by initiating attacks and passively by turning a blind eye to those involved in operations of this kind.

Sharon and Arafat have a lot in common. As a right-wing leader, Sharon has the power to lead a difficult, painful withdrawal from some of the settlements and to achieve peace, supported by the Israeli left wing. There are a few questions that have yet to be answered: Will Sharon be ousted from the prime minister's office because of his questionable ethics? Is Sharon prepared to support the establishment of a Palestinian state if the format is accepted by most of the world?

Based on my personal acquaintance with Arafat I know that as a widely-supported leader he can and wants to lead his nation to historic reconciliation, following Rabin's path and the vision laid down by President Clinton, and provided that the Palestinians get sovereignty over Temple Mount. But as long as no Palestinian state is in place, Arafat is unwilling to cause a civil war, as Israel requires him to do when it calls on him to behave like Ben-Gurion did in the Altalena affair.

Both Sharon and Arafat are wrong and they are both dragging their people down with them. The difference is that Sharon has means, while Arafat has absolutely nothing to lose.

Palestinian statehood is inevitable, and Sharon's policy will go down in history as misguided. But the Israeli public will soon forget Sharon's mistakes, as it forgets many other things. Arafat will be remembered as a leader who tried to make peace, and failed. My heart bleeds for the dead on both sides.