At first, the war on Gaza launched by Israel nearly four months ago in response to the shelling of its southern cities enjoyed an almost unprecedented level of approval by Americans in general, American Jews in particular and the media. The outgoing Bush administration, which always seemed willing to foster conflict in the Middle East, lent quiet support.

As the war went on and it became clear that hundreds of Gazans were being killed and their neighborhoods destroyed, dissident voices emerged, including among American Jews. In Pittsburgh, a petition calling for an immediate ceasefire signed by members of the Jewish community was published in The Jewish Chronicle. On Jan. 15, on one of the coldest nights of the year, some 130 members of the Jewish community came out to hear Jewish and Palestinian peace activists from Israel and Gaza.

Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish, a Palestinian physician, spoke at this event by phone from his blacked-out home in Gaza. The random cruelty and obvious futility of the war was tragically demonstrated the next day when three of his young daughters and a niece were killed by an Israeli shell, their only crime being that they happened to be Palestinians living in Gaza.

The news of this tragedy was broadcast live on Israeli TV and generated an outpouring of sympathy. Many people in Pittsburgh sent condolences to Dr. Abuelaish (by e-mail through me). These were later printed and presented to him by a mutual friend in Israel, as he was anxiously awaiting the recovery of a wounded surviving daughter in an Israeli hospital.

But the personal tragedy of Dr. Abuelaish did not generate an outpouring of sympathy for the other thousands of Palestinians who lost family members in the Israeli attacks, nor did it generate remorse or second thoughts among most of those in Pittsburgh's Jewish community who had so excitedly supported the war.

As was the case two and a half years earlier, when Israel was provoked by Hezbollah into a destructive military campaign in southern Lebanon, there was a misperception that being pro-Israel required American Jews to support any military action taken by the Israeli government and to oppose any call for a ceasefire. This unfortunate notion continued to dominate public discourse in the Jewish community.

In both wars, early ceasefires would have prevented significant civilian casualties, would have left Israel in a better tactical and strategic position and would have allowed the United States to become a more effective broker for future peace negotiations.

In both wars, most American Jewish organizations strongly supported Israel's actions and harshly criticized early calls for a ceasefire by Jewish peace groups.

In both wars, the United States failed to intervene quickly to stop the violence and in fact acted to block calls for a ceasefire by the international community, thus supporting continued bloodshed.

When Israeli munitions and troops began to pour into Gaza in late December, a loud call from mainstream American Jewish organizations and from the U.S. administration for an immediate ceasefire likely would have produced one, saving many lives. It also would have had an electrifying effect on interfaith relations in the United States and helped return American Jews to their traditional status as leaders for peace and human rights.

Unfortunately, this did not happen. Even now, when it is becoming clear that the destruction of Gaza and the extensive killing of noncombatants served only to strengthen Hamas rule in Gaza, the dominant expressed view is that the war was justified and necessary.

The response to criticism of Israeli government actions and policy is still characterized by efforts to delegitimize critics, as has been seen recently with attacks on J-Street, a new pro-Israel, pro-peace lobbying group, and by the proliferation of "Israel advocacy" campaigns on college campuses. Instead, we should be engaging in sincere discussions about whether the automatic support of Israeli government policies and actions by major American Jewish organizations actually benefit Israel.

Many Jewish spokespersons behave as if every criticism of Israel constitutes an attack on the nation's existence. They give no thought to the possibility that criticism might help keep the Israeli government from adopting policies and tactics detrimental to the Jewish state.

Of course, such "party line" positions are not unique to the Jewish community. In fact, during the recent war on Gaza, we saw a similar pattern among self-proclaimed pro-Palestinian groups in town.

In their justified anger about the killing of Palestinians in Gaza and their frustration about the lack of action by the United States, these groups staged some effective rallies and protests. But their campaign reached something of an absurd climax when they promoted a boycott on the Israeli dance company Bat-Sheba.

When informed during a Post-Gazette interview that pro-Palestinian groups intended to protest his ballet, Bat-Sheba choreographer Ohad Naharin said, "I assume the protests will be against the abuse of power by the Israeli army in the last war, and I assume the protest might be against the occupation, and I agree with [the Palestinian groups] on both of those things." Mr. Naharin previously had come under considerable criticism when he called Israeli military actions in Lebanon "war crimes."

If the issues had been central to the controversy, Mr. Naharin would have been hailed by pro-Palestinian groups as a champion of the Palestinian struggle, while Jewish supporters of the war on Gaza would have picketed outside the theater. But when party-line politics dominate, both sides adhere to meaningless labels of being pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian without a sincere discussion about what those labels actually mean, without understanding that being pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian are not mutually exclusive.

The last nine years have brought extensive destruction and civilian suffering to the Middle East. The recent political success of extremists in Palestinian, Israeli and Lebanese politics does not bode well for the region. In fact, it virtually assures continued war, oppression and mutual destruction.

Only a paradigm shift in the thinking of people who live in or care about the Middle East -- a shift to the view that everyone in the region deserves safety, well-being and liberty -- can prevent this grim future.

On Monday evening, 400 Pittsburgh residents from all walks of life heard about the need for a new way of thinking when Dr. Abuelaish spoke again at the Jewish Community Center in Squirrel Hill, this time in person.

Even though the Israeli army recently killed three of his children -- Bessan, 22; Mayar, 15; and Aya, 14 -- and despite being a living example of the dispossession and tragedy of the Palestinian people over the last 60 years, Dr. Abuelaish refuses to despair, to hate or to disregard the other side's grievances. Instead, he proposes that everyone respect, try to understand and recognize the humanity of perceived adversaries.

When he says "we," he often explains, he means both Israelis and Palestinians because their fates are interdependent, with neither able to thrive if the other does not. Thus a policy cannot be pro-Israeli if it does not address the essential needs and human rights of the Palestinians, and vice versa.

Following his example, we who live in the United States should be inspired to reject fake identity politics and encourage our government to pursue what is best for our friends, family members and brothers in the Middle East, be they Israeli or Palestinian, Jews, Muslims or Christians. And that is a negotiated, just and equitable peace agreement that ensures the safety, freedom and human rights of all people in the region.