Yes, you can try to grapple an enemy who is grappling you.

The rules for grappling are...

The target of your grapple must be no more than one size larger than you, and it must be within your reach. Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a Strength (Athletics) check[...]

PHB195

The effect of a Grapple is...

• A grappled creature's speed becomes 0, and it can't benefit from any bonus to its speed
• [Rules on how to get out]

PHB290

There's nothing in here that prevents you from counter-grappling, as long as you have a free hand and can reach your target. In which case you are both subjected to the Grappled condition, and now neither one of you can move without breaking the grapple first.

You must release the target to attack, probably ending the grapple

D&D 5e has a broad intent that any word which is not explicitly given special rules meaning, instead has its plain English meaning, though I don't have a citation prepared for it. In plain English we see this:

Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target ... you can release the target whenever you like

While "release" technically has multiple meanings, I find this context unambiguous in having Release mean "stop holding with your hand". From this plain English reading, I think it's clear that between the time that you "seize the target" and the time that you "release the target" your hand is occupied by that target; in other words, in order to use both your hands for a 2-handed weapon attack or other purpose you must release the target.

There does remain some ambiguity as to whether that actually ends the condition though. The sentence in question states:

The condition specifies the things that end it, and you can release the target whenever you like

But there isn't a strict connection indicating that "release the target" is an additional thing, not part of the set specified by the condition, which ends the grapple. It does seem likely that it was intended to be so based on the juxtaposition of the concepts, and supported by the subsequent section which unambiguously states that the means of ending a grapple are not entirely restricted to those specified by the condition.

Regarding "Common sense"

In a comment you mentioned that you don't bring real-world common sense into D&D, which is fine. Sometimes the rules explicitly contradict reality; after all you can't complain about someone casting a fireball on account of "magic isn't real". However, D&D also isn't a computer Rules Enforcement System where ambiguous edge cases have a single answer that's always correct and non-negotiable. Instead, D&D is adjudicated by Some Guy who, in my experience, is much more likely to be swayed by "It doesn't make sense that my Half-Orc Barbarian is physically incapable of throwing a gnome" than by "the rules don't say that letting go stops the grapple"; your mileage may vary depending on the DM. In general, I would say that ambiguous situations not clearly covered by rules are more likely to take whichever interpretation most closely matches common sense even if other times common sense is ignored.