We say: Hate and racism, incitement and violence are serious obstacles to peace. And both sides should work to contain and eliminate them. But we cannot allow hate and violence to deny Israel peace and to deny Israelis security.

At the root of the argument that political change can only take place once attitudes change are four wrong premises:

First is the assertion that Arabs are not ready for peace because they are still immersed in hatred of Israelis and Jews and rejection of Israel. No doubt many in the Arab world hate Israel, resent its occupation of what they believe are Arab lands, or even reject its existence. However, most Arabs have come to terms with Israel as a fact of life in the Middle East and would be ready to live in peace with it, once the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been resolved. The emergence of the Arab Peace Initiative is evidence of this.

Second is the notion that peace efforts should wait until Arab attitudes change - an argument that is patronizing and counterproductive. It is patronizing because, unfortunately, incitement and hatred go both ways - friends of Israel tend to focus on Arab inflammatory rhetoric, but there is no shortage of hateful rhetoric on the Israeli side as well, in addition to Israeli policies toward the Palestinians which the Arab world views as deeply offensive. It is counterproductive because putting peace on hold will only harden and sharpen negative attitudes: the continuation of the status quo of Israeli occupation will only deepen Arab resentment of Israel, igniting more hatred, and will deepen the Israeli demonization of the Palestinians.

Another wrong notion is that Arabs don't "deserve" peace because of their negative attitudes toward Israel - that they will not be "worthy" of peace with Israel until they change their views. This assertion presupposes that in seeking peace with its neighbors, Israel is acting out of benevolent or generous motivations, that peace is a gift that Israel gives to the Arabs once they earn it. The reality is that seeking sustainable, viable peace agreements, and reaching them urgently, is an Israeli self-interest. Indeed, as Israel's Defense Minister recently pointed out, Israel's very existence as a Jewish and democratic state is at risk absent a peace agreement. Israel should pursue peace, first and foremost, because of what Israelis need and deserve.

The fourth wrong premise is that political agreements with Arab leaders are worthless because they will be built on treacherous foundations. Arabs hate Israel so much, the argument goes, that while they make agreements out of expediency, they will be neither willing nor able to adhere to them.

This assertion is wrong because while Israelis may want a "warm" peace, what Israel needs are agreements with its neighbors that produce stability and security. A warm relationship is not a prerequisite for such agreements. It can only come after the core issues of the conflict are addressed, as time passes and the historic resentments recede into memory, and as people on both sides experience the tangible benefits of peace.

Expressions of hatred and incitement to violence do not advance the cause of peace. But conditioning peace negotiations on the elimination of hatred and incitement is a prescription for failure. Efforts toward peace - and the eventual achievement of peace between Israel and her neighbors - are aimed at providing security, stability and well-being to both Israelis and Arabs. Such efforts, if successful, offer the best way to change antagonistic attitudes on both sides.

Go HERE for previous installments of APN's "They Say, We Say"