1. Israel to return to its 1967 borders, giving up the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank.
2. Creation of a geniune Palestinian state.
3. Israel to decommission all nuclear weapons.

That, and years of careful diplomacy afterwards to keep the peace, would be the best hope.

How is this to be achieved?

Well for starters, the USA needs to stop supporting Israel. Come on Obama, have some balls.

Jamie,
How do steps 1, 2 and 3 create peace? I don't understand. Essentially, you want Israel to give up its leverage now in exchange for a peace some time in the future?

I've yet to hear a convincing two-state solution.

I'm going suggest some ideas after eating lunch

Here's my solution:

Invite all the middle eastern leaders to settle their differences over hummus, because who doesn't love hummus?

@Jamiet99uk,

You may want to check out the nuclear weapons thread

I don't quite feel up to a long, researched post right now, so I'll simply point out that unless the existence of the state of Israel is accepted by the rest of the middle east as no less a historical event than the prior existence of Palestine, there is little chance of peace.

The Palestinians should commit to active NON-VIOLENT resistance (as Ghandi taught in India). When ever that happens for an extended period of time (2 - 5 years) then Israel will loose all the arguments that it needs to defend itself. This will require a lot of organization on the Palestinian front, which will help create the conditions necessary for a stable government.

The Palestinians must also be willing to live with less then what they want. The 'Right of Return' should only be applied to people who were actually displaced in 1949 not their descendants [They should almost all be dead now].

The big question is that of Jerusalem. I'm inclined to say that it should become a city state. Perhaps something like Andora where the head of state is split between the Palestinians and Israelis, maybe include a Christian representative as well so that there are 3. [Although from my understanding, many of the Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem have left over the past 25 years].

There needs to be a time where trust can build between the sides, and that requires an absence of rockets, bombs and even stones.

Jamie,
Your 'solution' was exactly the kind of solution I was hoping to avoid when I posted after this thread started, about what 'can' happen, rather than you trying to impose what YOU think is just.

No Israeli PM could ever sell your solution, so no Israeli PM could ever sign that peace treaty. He could agree to it, his government would fall.

Any peace would need to give Israel something NOW, not some nebulous peace some time off in the distance. Seeing as many of the regional players (Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran) don't recognize Israel's right to exist, any peace treaty signed with those groups would be viewed as a sellout in Israel, unless the charter of those organization is changed beforehand.

Yet strangely, I don't see mention of any of that in your post.

Joey,
I like how you are thinking, but committing to non-violent resistance is difficult, especially with Iran willing to fund violent resistance.

The basis for a deal on Jerusalem was in place before Clinton left office, with the Palestinians having sovereignty over East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, and a neighborhood by neighborhood division. There is no need to make it independent.

Jamie,
Your 'solution' was exactly the kind of solution I was hoping to avoid when I posted after this thread started, about what 'can' happen, rather than you trying to impose what YOU think is just.

No Israeli PM could ever sell your solution, so no Israeli PM could ever sign that peace treaty. He could agree to it, his government would fall.

Any peace would need to give Israel something NOW, not some nebulous peace some time off in the distance. Seeing as many of the regional players (Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran) don't recognize Israel's right to exist, any peace treaty signed with those groups would be viewed as a sellout in Israel, unless the charter of those organization is changed beforehand.

Yet strangely, I don't see mention of any of that in your post.

when I started to read your last answer dingle, I thought you was referring that it cannot happen Obama to have some balls...

well, to give Israel "something NOW" is also a thing that cannot happen Dingle, and maybe thet's why it's so terribly difficult to find a "realistc" solution

Yes Checkmate, I agree.

As where all outsiders looking in on the problem we think that the issues are all cut and dry.With easy solutions that is not the case here this has been going on well before the creation of Isreal after WW II.
I know two Palestian girls and they active in there cause.They not despise Isreal but also Turks and British who where in Palestine before creation of Isreal.
I always ask them why Turks are your both Muslim and they go on about the whole history of the region and state that they want there own homeland with no outside influences.Having a common religion is not a factor to them.No outsiders and to them that includes Syrians,Egyptians,Iranians basicily if not Palestian you don't belong.

Pretending this problem is only Israel versus Palestine...oh yeah, the the US supporting Israel...is a terribly narrow view. Pretty much the whole of the Middle East would do little more than blink if Israel ceased to exist and they actively support terrorism against Israel, or specifically don't speak out against it.

I see absolutely no possibility of peace in our lifetime. This is a fight going back -literally - thousands of years and is tied up in the belief that God has granted these people the same piece of dirt. It adds an element of emotion and belief unto death that you are right, and the other guy is wrong. That is why we will never see an end to this conflict.

Israel has gained land by international agreement, by securing through war (in which others sought to secure their land...) they have given up land, and then been attacked by mortar and rocket from the land they gave up. Since Palestine ultimately want all the land Israel owns (I know, others will say thats not true, but they believe Israel should not exist, so I refute the refutation ahead of time) how much land should Israel give up in a pointless play for peace? It can't happen...

@ Dingle: Why should it be up to the Israeli PM? The Israeli's have proved themselves unable to resolve the situation by their own actions, and indeed their heavy-handed behaviour has only made the tensions worse. We have reached the point where the international community, such as it is, needs to impose a solution.

@KaiserWilly: I have previously spoken at length about my views on nuclear weapons. To wit: No country should have nuclear weapons. The US, UK, France, China and Russia cannot complain about other countries, such as Iran, North Korea, Israel, India or Pakistan attempting to acquire nuclear weapons, when they still have them themselves - it is the very height of hypocrisy. We should get rid of them, and then stop anyone else from building them ever again.

Jamie,
Then I would have to ask, why this conflict? Why aren't we imposing our collective will in Darfur and Uganda and Congo and Nigeria and I could go on forever... Why single Israel out again? Far more people have died in Darfur than in Gaza and Lebanon and the West Bank combined.

@Jamie: No country should have nuclear weapons? Dude...what planet do you live on? Let the drugs wear off and take a look at reality - there will never be a day when there are no nuclear weapons in anybody's hands until the next bigger, badder weapon comes along. How do you stop someone from building one after you get rid of them? Huge conventional wars? For that matter, how do you get rid of them? Huge conventional wars? Grow up, man. Idealism and Utopia and nice for fiction books, but have a nasty tendency to fail miserably in reality.

@DJones - There are those that want THIS particular conflict ended - and usually with Israel taking the brunt of the hit - because there are a hell of a lot of anti-Semites in the world. Israel's actions are "heavy-handed", but when Hammas puts a rocket into the middle of a wedding party you can hear the crickets chirp over the outrage these same individuals express. Kind of sad...

personally I abhor the hammas terrorist rockets as much as I abhor the Israel governement terrorist acts.
I'm not antisemite, and I'd like no conflicts in the whole earth

@krellin: should != will

Checkmate, and I'd like to fly. Back to reality.

oh, let me dream

@krellin - you assume too much. Being anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist does not make one anti-Semitic. Israel (the nation, not he chosen of God in the OT) is a big bully hiding under the protection of the US who, as a nation, can't seem to separate Israel the Chosen of God from Israel the nation either.

I have said things of an anti-Semitic nature in the past that I regret, mostly in jest, some hurtfully. I have to live with those statements and asnwer to God and the people I hurt for them. But that I still stand behind my belief that Israel the nation is as much to blame for the current conflict as Palestine or Hammas or any of the Islamic extremists.

I understand the desire to never be walked on again. Through out the ages, the people of Israel have been slaves to every one and masters of no one. But two wrongs don't make a right and abusing the power granted to you by your allies or God or whoever is still a sin. That land they got "through war"... What happened to "Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's property?"

If Israel the nation turned back towards God's commandments and truly desired to serve Him as Israel the Chosen, they would change their bullying and obsession with controlling everything that is different from them and reach out their hand in peace.

I mentioned the Red Cross and the Red Crescent in this thread or another one earlier (I forget which) and it amazes me that two organizations founded on what at a glance appear to be to religions at odds with each other can work together for the betterment of all the downtrodden througout the world, but Israel can't back off their hard nose stance, knowing that the free world would come to their defense if they did and their "enemies" decided to take advantage of their attempt at peace. Well, the meek shall inheret the kingdom of heaven and the nation that once represented the Chosen people of God will find themselves standing without tearing at their clothes and gnashing their teeth if they don't change their ways.

This is not to say the typical Israeli will find themselves in this position as a devout Jew, Christian, or Muslim (or any other religion) with love in their hearts and peace on their minds will always be welcome in His kingdom. But the hardline Zionists who insist on this stance most certainly will find themselves left outside, looking in and wondering what they did wrong, or worse, knowing what they did wrong with no time to change.

any realistic peace process would require that both parties felt:
a) secure
b) that they weren't totally screwed

Since, historically, Israel has felt under attack from day one, offering them security is a nontrivial exercise - especially since there are certain parties in both Israel and the United States that would take any concessions as a sign of weakness, and hence an excuse to push for *more* concessions (shades of Czechoslovakia anyone?)

An international force to guarantee peace is a nice concept, but who is going to supply the troops? The UN? The Arab League? The United States? For various (fairly obvious) reasons, those are all nonstarters.

There isn't going to be "peace in the middle east" until the status quo no longer benefits Israel (who, while stuck in a crappy situation, sees most of the other options as being *more* crappy) and Israel's critics (who find it easier to point the finger at Israel than dealing with their own problems.)

In the long run, that'll probably be a combination of demographics (as the Palestinians and Arab-Israelis continue to outbreed the 'Jewish' Israelis) and an economic weakening of the United States to the point where Israel feels that they have no choice but to cut some kind of a deal, as the aid they get from the US is a pretty significant chunk of change - $2 B + yearly (primarily military) out of a GDP of $200B, and a defense budget of around $15B - and in case anyone hasn't been paying attention to Greece, the US debt load is unsustainable, and as strong as the Israel lobby is, they're going to have a hell of a time justifying that kind of aid level when people get told their Social Security "savings" just went away.

Draugnar,
Let me clarify a few things for you. Israel is a secular nation with secular laws and a secular judiciary. That being said, there is a large block of people who vote strictly on religious grounds (picture the abortion litmus test in the US). Many of the 'chosen' have moved to the West Bank, and that certainly complicates matters: however, Israel has shown in the past that it will remove their religious zealots from settlements, both in Sinai and in Gaza. Israel could do so again if there were a chance at peace. The settlements are not stopping peace. They are, however, stopping a Palestinian state. That is their intention. If there is peace, Israel could, if it wanted, remove the settlements. The hardline religious zealots are NOT a majority in the country.

"knowing that the free world would come to their defense"

Based on the history you described earlier in your post, why in the world would anyone in Israel believe that?!?!?!?

Left wing prime ministers have tried to negotiate peace, in earnest. Witness Rabin. But when you have 2 groups on your borders that refuse to recognize your country, so any peace settlement is essentially dead before it starts, how do you want them to 'back off their hard nosed stance'. I agree, the status quo does not work. But neither does 'backing off their hard nosed stance'.

(On a side note, the Red Star of David was rejected by the Red Cross. There is a Red Cross for Christian nations, a Red Crescent for Muslim nations, and a Red Crystal for 'miscellaneous and others'.)

@ Dingle: "Then I would have to ask, why this conflict?"

Erm, because the OP asked about Israel/Palestine, not the other conflict zones you mention. I'm not 'singling out' Israel as you suggest, I am just responding to the topic. If I had responded to the question "How would you bring peace to the Middle East?" by saying "Send troops to Nigeria and Congo!" this would seem a bit odd, no?

@krellin:"@Jamie: No country should have nuclear weapons? Dude...what planet do you live on?"

I live on planet Earth - a planet I'd rather not see destroyed in a nuclear holocaust, thanks. I won't go into a detailed argument about nuclear weapons here, because that would be off-topic. I hope you will at least agree that for country A to have huge stockpiles of nukes, and then say "it is wrong for country B to have nuclear weapons" is massively hypocritical?

Also, Krellin, you are wrong to label anti-Israeli sentiments as anti-Semitic. I am opposed to the current government of Israel. This does not make me anti-Jewish. There are plenty of Jewish people who have nothing to do with the modern state of Israel, and the reasons that I dislike Israel's policies have nothing to do with religious bigotry.

Jamie,
My apologies to you. I'm glad to know that when I start the 'End the Darfur' thread, you will be just as interested. You will be one of the few people in the world who can say that.

"Hezbollah first emerged as a militia in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon...in 1982" - they may be regarded in part or wholey as a terrorist organisation, but they were setup to protect Lebanon FROM Israel.

Sure they may oppose the existance of Israel but it is clear that Israel helped them grow into the serious player in Lebanese politics they are today.

"The Palestinians should commit to active NON-VIOLENT resistance (as Ghandi taught in India)." - yes, a new firey brand of Islam could be invented and taught to the Palestinians which highlights the merits of pacificism and that through suffering in this life we will become closer to God in the next life.

Or perhaps we could remove the scourge of religion from the world and people could start living by mans law and accept the reality of our situations, if you don't resolve your differences you will live in fear and suffering. As an aside, why should i do anything to help or hinder their problems? let them kill each other, give them all nuclear weapons and see what happens. Every last Israeli fanatic and Plaestinian militant. We'll see exactly what nuclear weapons are capable of!!!

And women help create rapists by having a vagina.

I'm actually confused as to the point of your last post Orathaic. So you are against trying to convince a people that killing people is bad? Or you are for killing people who are pro-killing? I really am confused as to what your motive behind that post is.