How would you suggest doing that on terms that both sides would agree with?

There is no negotiating with Hamas the real people at said table would need to be:
Egypt, Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Iran, US, and UK.

OK, that is fine. Basic point, find a workable solution for both parties.

There is not going to be any agreement of any kind, ever. There will never be anything "that both sides would agree with."

"Kicking the ball down the field" (which apparently is the more accurate quote) is the only proposal I've seen that acknowledges that reality.

Solution: develop a serum that suppresses xenophobic thoughts and administer worldwide

Honestly, I say put it under UN control. Once tensions have eased and Hamas de-armed, then switch it to the Palestinian government. I would say much the same on the status of Jerusalem. Make it an independent city-state, with a religious council composed equally of Muslims, Jews and Christians.

develope the economies of both israel and palestine, and attach them at the hip. money makes the world go round.

Do you honestly think that Israel is ever going to even consider an agreement where they lose one of the biggest tourist attractions on the face of the planet? Get real. Eastern Jerusalem may get ceded to Palestine, but as for the city itself becoming an internationally-controlled city, yeah right.

Of course there will not be an agreement that both sides will like. But a true compromise is what leaves everyone angry. At least, let them be equally angry.

That's something that someone who is overanxious to solve an apparent problem says. That's the attitude that makes for rushed deals that don't last. You have to play nice with Israel, because they don't *have* to do this and clearly the Knesset doesn't feel a whole lot of pressure to get it done. The Palestinians would have to cede more than Israel, and the Arab world would have to agree to recognize Israel and remain peaceful with them, for any of this to go through.

"Once tensions have eased"

Why would tensions ease?

"Hamas de-armed"

Easier said than done.

"Then switch it to the Palestinian government"

Who might just vote in Hamas.

"Make it an independent city-state, with a religious council composed equally of Muslims, Jews and Christians"

Are we talking about Gaza here? Why would there be a multi-religious council in *Gaza*? If you were talking about Israel + West Bank + Gaza as a whole for your previous suggestions... well, that isn't realistic at all.

"develope the economies of both israel and palestine, and attach them at the hip"

What? Why not do that everyplace, if that's even possible.

The only real way to proceed is to accept that *there will be no resolution* - knowing there is no answer is better than acting as if there is one. Kick the ball down the field for a few hundred years. Yes, things are bad, but they could be much, much worse. Utopian proposals don't help.

There won't be a true compromise. There won't even be a pretend agreement. Any leader that agreed to any of this, would be out in 30 seconds, and replaced by someone who would tear up the agreement. On both sides.

There will never, ever be an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

@goldfinger0303 Oh sorry I misread the bit about multi-religious council in Jerusalem. It still won't happen, but it isn't nonsense (I thought you were referring to Gaza). Sorry about that.

Anyway, point still stands, as against this from @KingCyrus:

"Of course there will not be an agreement that both sides will like... At least, let them be equally angry. "

That's Utopian thinking, dressed up like something realistic.

There simply is not going to be any agreement, *at all*, *ever*.

I don't pretend it will be utopian. It doesn't even have to be a GOOD compromise. Just one that will work. Even kicking the can down the road would entail some sort of compromise. How else would you avoid conflict, or "Kick the ball down the field for a few hundred years."?

"It doesn't even have to be a GOOD compromise. Just one that will work."

Really...

The Treaty of Versailles was "just one that will work." Completely fucked Germany over, led to a second world war, but they got the money and territory they wanted, even if it took 80 years. It "worked" by those standards. If you want to make this fight a hundred times worse, you should write up "just one that will work."

Well at this point, I was thinking of something that would at least stop people from killing each other for, oh, say at least 30 years.

@KingCyrus "something that would at least stop people from killing each other for, oh, say at least 30 years" is a Utopian dream world. It is not going to happen. Israelis and Palestinians will continue killing each other, and no agreement or compromise is going to stop that. Be realistic.

But... let's just keep kicking the can down the field. It will be bad. The idea is, don't make it worse by forcing something unacceptable out of an emotional need for resolution.

bo - Both Israel and Palestine want ALL of Jerusalem. Neither side will realistically cede half to the other. So why not make the city separate? Not part of either state, but its own separate entity. Just like Vatican City is its own independent state, a state of Jerusalem could protect the religious sites that are important to billions of people around the world.

As for Gaza being controlled by the UN - a few members of the Knesset said they would at the very least consider that idea. And that would change the dynamic of the situation dramatically. If Hamas were to keep fighting, they would be fighting the world, not Israel. Have the peacekeepers be drawn from Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia and other Muslim countries. It would eliminate the ability for Hamas to exist as a militant force.

@tendmote, OK, not killing might have been a bit exaggerated. Since Palestine and Israel really haven't stopped killing each other since Israel was created. But, they are capable of avoiding such large casualties.

Also, yes, this a HYPOTHETICAL idea, since, you know, none of us work for the Israeli government or Hamas. (As far as I know)

@goldfinger0303

"So why not make the city separate?"

Because that is objectionable to *both* the Israelis and the Palestinians! Neither side will agree to that.

"As for Gaza being controlled by the UN - a few members of the Knesset said they would at the very least consider that idea."

I don't think Hamas or the Palestinians would agree that Gaza is for the Knesset to give to the U.N. Would the U.N. really invade and occupy Gaza at the Knesset's request? I'm guessing the Muslim composition of the U.N. army is your idea and not the Knesset's...

They might agree to it so long as they don't see the other side benefiting from it either.

A UN peacekeeping force in Gaza would necessarily require Israel to lift the blockade, so yes, they do need approval of the Knesset. There are UN peacekeepers in troubled spots all over the world, such as Kosovo. There are Russian peacekeepers in Trans-Dneistria. The common theme is the disadvantaged power receives protection from a stronger enemy. Why not Gaza? And yes, the Muslim composition was my idea. Its been par for the course in most UN operations though. Most of the UN peacekeeping force in Somalia was Muslim.

You cannot have a realistic negotiation without Hamas there, simply because they are always going to be in the position to wreck any agreement and they have a lot of support amongst Palestinians. That's just how it is. If Israel balks at that, then you have your answer as to whether there is a peace that is possible. No.

It's a bit tricky, because one has to separate out what the side say they want from what they act like they want. For example, Israel says it wants security, but acts like its main interests are in territorial acquisition. If we assume that Israel is primarily interested in security, then UN oversight to guarantee both Israeli and Palestinian security would be an excellent start, including a UN force strong enough and with a mandate to bloody IDF's nose should it launch another attack. The peace keepers need to be the sole military force in Gaza for the time being. Regular contested and overseen elections would help as well. Of course, the blockade has to end.

@gf - "Neither side will realistically cede half to the other. So why not make the city separate?"

If Israel falls under severe international pressure from the US (not from the EU or the UN, who knows what they're doing with this mess so far) to split between East and West Jerusalem, they'll do it. The border will be at the wall. Given my time in Berlin and my inherent hatred toward the USSR for building that wall in the first place, I'm not terribly proud of proposing that solution, but it is what it is. Israel is one of the biggest economies in the world and one of the most progressive ones at that, and there is absolutely no way in the world that they are going to cede control of Jerusalem even if the UN declares it international territory. Hell, they haven't yet. The only way you're going to get Israel to back out of East Jerusalem is to leave West Jerusalem under their control under the condition that the apartheid-esque conditions change. They get the tourist dollars of the Old City, they move out of the Palestinian half of Jerusalem and allow it to be established as the new capital of Palestine. Split the two countries. An international city would just end up a long-term mess.

Regarding Gaza, I somewhat agree. It certainly shouldn't go back to Israel, it certainly shouldn't be ruled over by Egypt, and it certainly isn't working out in the hands of Hamas. For the sake of the people living there, the UN is probably a workable option. I doubt the Knesset would agree to that, though. There may be a few that do, but a few doesn't get the job done. Israel already has issues with how the UN has handled their presence in Gaza, so without offering some other concession to Israel in exchange, that won't happen with their approval. I don't think Hamas would agree to it either unless it was an intermediate peace discussion, i.e. they've already sat down and are working productively with each other as opposed to the usual one-day peace.

"They might agree to it so long as they don't see the other side benefiting from it either."

The idea that one side or the other in this conflict will compromise as long as it doesn't favor the other side is a totally incorrect assumption. The goals of each side involve the other side being *gone*. That's the goal. No Israel. Or no Palestine. Any resolution that involves moving away from those goals is not going to be accepted.

A agreement where "they don't see the other side benefiting" is incompatible with the goal of there not being another side. So there won't be any real agreement.

Imposing a broad agreement from the outside, via the U.N., would pretty much involve forcing the unconditional surrender of both sides. It's not going to happen. Would Israel let the U.N. administer Gaza, confiscating weapons? Perhaps. Would it allow a force there that could "bloody the IDF's nose?" Well, it's not a boxing match; I would expect the IDF to respond to an attack by the U.N. by fighting them to the finish, immediately, even if it flattened all of Gaza in the process.

So how do you proceed when there can never be an agreement? Kick the ball down the field. Leave everything unresolved, because the only feasible resolutions are worse than the status quo.