I think you have to let them bloody each other until negotiations seem like a really good idea, from both sides. For the Egyptian-Israel Peace Treaty, that came after Sadat managed a surprise attack on Israel, winning some solid early victories - then promptly got driven back to the other side of the Suez Canal.

After that, negotiations were a good idea - Sadat had at least some victories under his belt, and knew that negotiations were the only way he'd get the Sinai back. The Israelis were embarrassed by the 1973 War, and although it took a lot of prodding, they ultimately surrendered the Sinai. Either way, what was important was that they both got the initiative going, something that has happened before, back in the 2000 Accords that failed (but came farther than any before them).

You also need to have some pretty big carrots and sticks to get the Israelis to give up defensible territory, or territory with deep meaning. The Sinai and the currently Israeli occupied Golan Heights have both - they offered defensive terrain. The West Bank, unfortunately, combines both - it is highly defensible terrain, and is soaked in Jewish religious meaning (many of the pro-settling people call it "Judaea and Samaria").

That's not a happy answer to those who really want to tackle this problem, particularly on the Democratic side.

Maybe I'm missing the subtleties, but how is this any different from previous presidents?

And look, on cue, they're already burning Obama's effigy in the region. The more things change...

"Hamas really is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. And Israel has long been unwilling to moderate its behavior on housing settlements in the ocupied territories."

What a strange parallel.

I am offended by the implication that an aggressive settlement policy in the West Bank is in any way comparable with murder and genocide.

Furthermore, the West Bank with its settlements and its occupying Israeli forces is certainly in better shape than Gaza, where the occupation ended and the settlements are gone. So there is no objective basis on which to say that "moderating its behavior" with respect to settlements would be a better way for Israel to further the peace.

Oh please... the Palestinians will never have peace... they dont recognize Israel. Never have. Never will. Period.

Many of them may be resigned to the fact that Israel cannot be summarily destroyed, but if you pulled a random Palestinian on the street and asked if he wanted to go back to the time when Israel didnt exist, he'd jump on that chance.

Hamas was elected by the Palestinian people in open elections and resoundingly so. Fatah is considered a spineless and corrupt organization.

Most Palestinans realize that Hamas could never win a fair fight with Israel. But the very fact that Hamas is willing to fight the Jewish state with a single mindedness is something that seems to be hugely popular.

This is the curse of Israel - they may have ultimately got their homeland back - but they have to pray a very heavy price for it. Perpetual enemity with its neighbors.

Of course the demographics in the region are favoring the Arabs now - this probably is what makes the Israelis really scared and prompts their settlement activities. But this is a vain attempt in my opinion fraught with more risk.

You have to feel for the innocent people caught in the middle in both these countries.

Many of them may be resigned to the fact that Israel cannot be summarily destroyed, but if you pulled a random Palestinian on the street and asked if he wanted to go back to the time when Israel didnt exist, he'd jump on that chance.

Your point? I imagine that if you pulled over a random Israeli and asked him if he would like it if all the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories vanished, leaving Israel all of the territory from the Mediterranean to the Jordan, he'd say yes.

Hamas was elected by the Palestinian people in open elections and resoundingly so. Fatah is considered a spineless and corrupt organization.

Sort of - they had the largest minority among the groups, 44% or the like. Your basic point stands, though; Hamas won in part because they ran on an anti-corruption campaign as well.

Most Palestinans realize that Hamas could never win a fair fight with Israel. But the very fact that Hamas is willing to fight the Jewish state with a single mindedness is something that seems to be hugely popular.

Of course it is. Your average Palestinian looks at the alternative - even the two-state solution - and sees a small, weak state that will be perpetually under the Israelis' thumb, since the Israelis probably won't tolerate allowing any prospective Palestine to build its own military.

Of course the demographics in the region are favoring the Arabs now - this probably is what makes the Israelis really scared and prompts their settlement activities. But this is a vain attempt in my opinion fraught with more risk.

The demographics only favor the Arabs in the Occupied Territories (particularly Gaza, which is exploding in population). In Israel Proper, the Arab birth rate has dropped steadily over the decades (it's about on par with the Haredim or less; about 3-4 children as opposed to six, seven, or nine in the past), and combined with the million or so Jews who immigrated from Russia after the end of the Cold War, it's unlikely that the Arab population will represent a majority in Israel any time in the 21st century (in fact, they probably won't represent more than 30% of the population at most by 2030).