What is likely to be the resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict?  It seems that whatever the Israelis give, they will never
allow right-of-return, especially as the Palestinian population gets
larger and larger.  Many Palestinians won't give up pursuit of
right-of-return though.  Will Israel eventually concede enough land
that most Palestinians will think it's not worth attacking Israeli
Jews for more rights?  Will terrorism eventually become passe enough
that Israeli checkpoints will be less aggressive/humiliating or no
longer needed, so that the common Palestinian no longer has their
disdain of Israel reguarly renewed?  Or is the resolution an education
issue, a literacy issue, or maybe a matter of surrounding countries'
pitching in and being more welcoming of Palestinians into their own
country -- as a secondary solution? Is it possible that those who
drive the violence have no interest in concluding it, since it's a
source of their power?

The reason I'm asking is b/c in several other wars, if this conflict
can be called a war, one side sufficiently levels the other side so
that a surrender and cooperation are engendered.  But in this case,
Israel would not decimate the Palestinians and the Palestinians can't.

Answers appreciating the complexity of the issue and both sides' right
to defend themselves are encouraged.

Dear CWD, 

No one could make exact predictions on the state of this conflict, and
I hope that you don't expect me to use my secret crystal ball (it has
been broken when Fukuyama's "The End of History" fell on it last
week). As Grthumongous suggests in their response, your attitude
reflects a "zero sum game" theory: either the Israelis or the
Palestinians perceive any result with gain to the other side as a
"loss" in the "game". However, a way must be found to enable a mutual
gain, as peace is in fact mutual gain of both sides.

You said "in several other wars, if this conflict can be called a war,
one side sufficiently levels the other side so that a surrender and
cooperation are engendered". This is a bit of a problematic conception
regarding wars and their impact. The impacts of war could not be only
measured by a "winning" side, like the pre-modern wars could (maybe)
be estimated. Even if there is a "triumph", its impact could have
adversary affects. For example, the allies "won" World War I, forcing
Germany into repayments. The economic and social crisis that followed
had much worse adversary consequences. It could be claimed that the
Six Days War (1967) has been "won" by Israel, but had many adversary
effects on its society (as well as on the Palestinian one), on its
future policy and constraints, etc.

I must here concede that I am becoming less and less optimistic in the
past few years. I am an activist in Middle East peace organisations,
and visited/lived in Israel and Palestine. Last years' events
eliminated much of the hope for peace, much of the trust between the
sides, and therefore, also an important foundation for a viable peace
treaty, based on mutual trust. I think that Gunner's comments reflect
this mistrust (it might be helpful to note, that eretzyisroel.org,
linked by this commentator, is associated with Israel's right wing
settlers' media).

Several crucial problems appear in this conflict that might be even unique to it: 
- The religious importance of Jerusalem to both sides; as well as
other holy sites in Israel and Palestine;
- The economic gap between Israelis - who are an OECD country - and
the Palestinians, who live in Third World, dependant, economy;
- The refugee and "Right of Return" problem; 
- The deficiency in resources, especially water, in the region. 

In any of these cases, a "zero sum game" solution would not solve the
situation, only add to the aggravation of one of the sides, the one
that feels that they have "lost".

Let's start with the possible solutions as each side presents them: 

- Some Israelis claim that Israel should annex the area occupied since
1967, and either drive/transfer the Palestinians, or to control those
who want to cooperate under an Israeli (Jewish-national) state. This
is an extreme right minority in the Israeli public, but it is still
important to understand the scope of the "solutions" and the problem
therefore.

- More Israelis do not support this view, and support democratic
values (at least to some extent, see: Asher Arian, The Back Page:
"What is troubling is the erosion of support for democracy in public
opinion", Jerusalem Report,
<http://www.jrep.com/Mideast/Article-14.html>). However, at best, when
they do support a solution, it is one of two states, one for the
Palestinians in the occupied territories (excluding the Golan Heights,
which were occupied from Syria in 1967), and a Jewish state on the
pre-1967 territory. This could be an ideal solution (two states to two
people). However, the Jerusalem problem, as well as the refugee's
"Right of Return" is still controversial and not accepted by most
Israelis. In this aspect, it is worth mentioning, that during the
Rabin Government (1992-1995), the peace process was much widely
supported as it is now in the public arena (media, education system,
etc.), and since public opinion is shaped by these elements, it could
be that a change in government (or in policy within the current
government), would affect a transformation is the support for this
solution. After all, this support in "two state" solution, or the
realisation that the occupation could not continue, are also
developments in public opinion, since the "First Intifadha" (1987).

- A small percentage of the Israelis at the "extreme left" as well as
many Palestinians believe that the solution is in a bi-national state.
However, this solution is one that aggravates and scares most
Israelis, that view it as a solution that would eliminate the
"Jewish-ness" of the state, and therefore also its functioning as a
refuge for the Jews of the world from anti-Semitism or hostility (See
for an interesting analysis of the angst of both sides: George E.
Irani and Laurie King-Irani, "Needed: A New Cognitive Road Map for
Peace", as published in the Lebanese Daily Star, July 6, 2003,
<http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/2003/0706cognitive.htm>).

- As for the Palestinians, it is more difficult to present an accurate
picture of public opinion. Those who live in the occupied territories,
live under double constraints: the occupation, and the lack of
democracy in the Palestinian "Authority". Some of those who live
outside Palestine live under dictatorships. There is a considerable
support for the "two states" solution, but a considerable part of the
Palestinian population, especially those affected by Islamist or
extremist incitement in the Middle Eastern refugee camps, would accept
no solution, in which the State of Israel would continue to exist.

Partial solutions to the refugee and Jerusalem problems are suggested
in two recent bi-national initiatives. Both initiatives are advocated
by moderate activists of both sides.

The People's Voice <http://www.mifkad.org.il/eng/> (the site also has
Hebrew, Arabic and Russian versions), also called "The National
Referendum" tried to find the following solutions to the refugee and
Jerusalem problems:

"Jerusalem will be an open city, the capital of two states. Freedom of
religion and full access to holy sites will be guaranteed to all."

"Right of return:  Recognizing the suffering and the plight of the
Palestinian refugees, the international community, Israel, and the
Palestinian State will initiate and contribute to an international
fund to compensate them.

?        Palestinian refugees will return only to the State of
Palestine; Jews will return only to the State of Israel.

?        The international community will offer to compensate toward
bettering the lot of those refugees willing to remain in their present
country of residence, or who wish to immigrate to third-party
countries."

Some of those behind the initiative are not peace activists, but
actually former military/militants officials of both sides, who
realised that only a solution that respects both of those points could
bring about to a reduction in the hostilities.

Another initiative is the Geneva Initiative, initiated by prominent
left-wing politicians of the Israeli side as well as by moderates from
the Palestinian side: Geneva Accord:
<http://www.heskem.org.il/Heskem_en.asp?id=8>

Unlike the Oslo Accord (the Rabin-led peace process, 1993), the Geneva
Accord is not a "process focused" accord, but a solution focused one:
it focuses on these acute problems and their possible solutions.

So, in other words, the assumption that "whatever the Israelis give,
they will never allow right-of-return, especially as the Palestinian
population gets larger and larger", is not accurate. Some Israeli
politicians, and some Palestinian moderates do promote a solution, in
which most of the refugee problem would be solved, usually in the same
area where they live right now, or in the symbolic level. This is an
anecdote, not an empirical evidence, but I met more than one
Palestinian who is willing to accept a "symbolic Right of Return", as
opposed to an actual one (admirably, the activists I met were peace
activists, therefore ready for concessions).

"Will terrorism eventually become passé enough that Israeli
checkpoints will be less aggressive/humiliating or no longer needed,
so that the common Palestinian no longer has their disdain of Israel
regularly renewed?"

First, terrorism by extremists is not dependent upon peace. In fact,
paradoxically, the extremist may increase their terror in times of
peace negotiation or peace, as they feel that their views would be
less and less acceptable. Second, some of the Palestinian terrorists
do not hold nationalist ideologies as such, but radical religious
nationalism, whose solution is one: elimination of non-Islamic regime
and social forms. Thirdly, because an improvement in the border checks
would not diminish the fact that they still live under humiliating
occupation, and that their national assumptions are repressed. It
could be argued, that the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories
enjoy better material conditions as many Arabs in neighbouring states,
or better as they were before the occupation: Israel installed
infrastructure, etc. However, the fact remains, that people need a
more than these economic gains: freedom, for example.

"Or is the resolution an education issue, a literacy issue?"

This is definitely part of the problem. In Israel, as mentioned
before, education disregards any possible claims on the rights of the
Palestinians or on their unjust condition. In Palestine, children are
taught from anti-Semitic books. It also doesn't help, when soldiers
take over their schools, or when children of both sides see friends or
family killed by the enemy.

However, the current leadership is not interested in any solution such
as the ones offered in the Geneva Accord or the "People's Voice"
initiatives. Henry Kissinger once said that Israel has no foreign
policy, only a domestic one. When Sharon threatened Arafat this week,
he was aiming towards his own party, or creating a spin, given his
possible indictment in corruption. Arafat, on the other hand, is the
person who got the Nobel Peace Prize wearing uniform. No further words
needed...

It is difficult to say anything optimistic regarding this conflict. I
think that the two initiatives I featured demonstrate a renewed
thinking regarding some of the more acute issues in this conflict, and
provide some limited hope - but the fact that they are not embraced by
the leaders hinders their effectiveness. The conflict in the last four
years lessened the trust between the two sides, which is essential for
any real process. In addition, even with a solution of "two states",
the economic gaps between rich and poor; and the fact that Israel
would continue to be a "Jewish" state, could create further problems.

I hope this answered your question. Please contact me if you need any
clarification on this answer before you rate it.

Thank you very much for your surprisingly lengthy answer.  I
appreciate your pointing out what was wrong with my questions, as well
as your incorporating the prior two comments into your answer and your
own personal assessment.  I had been curious to understand the
humiliation factor more and this helps a good deal.  What you've given
me to reflect on has certainly satisfied my curiosity on this issue
for now.  Very, very best wishes in your endeavor.

I'd also like to thank the other two contributors for their help as well.

Charles Dorman

One input into the multi-dimensional solution set might come from the
branch of Mathematics known as Game Theory.

http://www.nature.com/nsu/031215/031215-1.html

Your questions have filled several books over the years and will
continue to do so. The trick is finding one that objectively shows
both sides of the struggle. No discussion of the topic can be
intellectually undertaken without studying the history of the region,
all the way back to biblical days.

For a 20th century snapshot, try the UN site,
<http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html>

or for more in-depth information on the region itself, try
<http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/>

especially his essay on "Myths of the Middle East"
<http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/myths.html>

No matter what history holds, no past wrong committed is sufficient to
justify the levels or types of terrorism we see today in the region
(and one must make the distinction between self-defense and a
terroristic act. Launching a rocket into the car of an internationally
known terrorist is a military act of self-defense. Blowing yourself up
on a bus full of women and children is an inexcusable act of
terrorism). The Palestinian people have been hijacked by terroristic
organizations (of which the PLO is one) and kept poor and ignorant to
further the goals of these same organizations.

I would like to address your questions individually:

?Will Israel eventually concede enough land that most Palestinians
will think it's not worth attacking Israeli Jews for more rights??  -
Based on the comments of numerous PLO/Hamas/et al ?spokesmen?, only
the complete destruction of Israel will suffice.

?Will terrorism eventually become passé enough that Israeli
checkpoints will be less aggressive/humiliating or no longer needed,
so that the common Palestinian no longer has their disdain of Israel
regularly renewed??  - Never

?Or is the resolution an education issue, a literacy issue??  - If the
Palestinian people were allowed to be educated and given access to a
free press, their views might change. Problem is, so many generation
have been raised on hate, it will be an enormous undertaking.

??or maybe a matter of surrounding countries' pitching in and being
more welcoming of Palestinians into their own country -- as a
secondary solution?? ? A little research will find that the
surrounding countries are already part of the problem and fan the
flames on a regular basis. After the Six-Day War, Israel captured
Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. But they didn't capture these
territories from Yasser Arafat. They captured them from Jordan's King
Hussein.

?Is it possible that those who drive the violence have no interest in
concluding it, since it's a source of their power?? ? BINGO. Give that
man a prize. Actually, they may consider it concluded when all of the
State of Israel is obliterated, but chances are they will just find
another reason to commit acts of terrorism.

?The reason I'm asking is b/c in several other wars, if this conflict
can be called a war, one side sufficiently levels the other side so
that a surrender and cooperation are engendered.  But in this case,
Israel would not decimate the Palestinians and the Palestinians
can't.? ? Israel is entirely capable of militarily demolishing what is
Palestine but won?t, because to date it has been defending itself, not
trying to conquer anyone. If it wanted to, it could conquer virtually
every country that surrounds it. (Look what happened to Egypt when it
tried to attack Israel. They got their head handed to them)

Since this is the comments section and not an answer (and truthfully,
because of the sheer depths this topic can reach, for $8.00, no one
probably will), I will end it here. Any mention of this topic is bound
to ignite passions, and understandable so. The preceeding was based on
my observations and opinions. I just hope any ensuing discussion will
be based in historical fact and intellectual analysis, instead of
baseless rhetoric and catch phrase propaganda.

Thank you for the rating and the tip!