As any serious observer of the Israeli-Palestinian tragedy can testify, partisan enthusiasts of either side are very good at telling everyone else what they should think, where they are wrong and how they should behave. The Israeli ambassador to London, Ron Prosor is, to be fair, not alone in ploughing this path. I counted a total of 11 such imperatives in his brief article for the Guardian last week.

My purpose here is not to dwell on his contradictions, misconceptions or banalities (that would take a much longer piece) but to query what he hoped to achieve by writing such a muddled article at all. Why start off by paying lip service to the Arab Peace Initiative and then go on to tear it apart bit by bit? The most charitable explanation is that he has not made a serious effort to understand it or consider it in context.

Not so long ago, a proposal from the Arab world that held out the prospect of full peace and normalisation of relations between every Arab country and Israel would have had Israelis dancing in the streets. Contrary to the Israeli ambassador's suggestion, the API – endorsed by the whole Arab League and the 57 member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference – is an extraordinary reversal of the famous "three noes" of Khartoum in the months following the war of 1967. Sure, there are conditions and (as Prosor rightly says) a need for bilateral negotiations, but the API was plainly never intended to be "a diktat". It is not a draft peace treaty but a general statement of principles, with some remarkable advances on the past.

In particular, it foresees all Arab countries (i) regarding "the Arab-Israeli conflict ended", (ii) entering "into a peace agreement with Israel", (iii) providing "security for all the states of the region", and (iv) establishing "normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace."

In exchange, the API calls upon Israel to affirm (a) "Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967", (b) "Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN general assembly resolution 194", and (c) "The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza strip, with east Jerusalem as its capital."

These requirements are best understood not as frozen snapshots (or rigid decrees) but as part of an unfolding panorama. Thus, with regard to (a) and (c), it has long been understood (at least since the Taba talks of January 2001) that within the context of a two-state solution – which accords with official Arab, Palestinian and Israeli policy – border adjustments will be possible between the future Palestinian and Israeli states, provided the land swaps are equitable. With regard to (b), the novel development is the explicit Arab commitment to an agreed solution to the refugee problem, albeit based on Resolution 194, to take account of Israel's concern regarding the demographic character of the Jewish state.

And finally, in (c), it is striking that "east" Jerusalem (not "Jerusalem" as in the past) is designated as the capital of the Palestinian state, implying that the Arab world stands ready in the future to recognise west Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a remarkable development that would give the green light for countries around the world to follow suit, fulfilling an Israeli dream since the establishment of the state in 1948. It is a sad commentary that such a stunning advance is perceived in some Israeli circles (although by no means all) as a threat and a setback.

A telling change of tone is also detectable: the API "requests" and "calls on" Israel rather than "demands" and "requires" as in the past.

How much more productive would it be if, instead of instinctively preaching to each other, each side interrogated itself and asked what positive contribution it could make to furthering a genuine peace process? The API is a constructive, if imperfect, start. Among its requests to Israel is that it "declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well". And why not? So, let us challenge the Israeli ambassador, and through him the Israeli government, to emulate the Arab Peace Initiative by issuing its own parallel statement of principles in the form of an Israeli Peace Initiative. What do you say Ambassador Prosor?