Unfortunately, in every more peaceful period, there were more settlements installed and the probability for an outcome with a healthy state of Palestine lowered.
Really? As I recall, in the period of relative calm, Israel actually pulled out of the Gaza Strip, despite vehement protests from its own hard-line settlers.
They pulled out as a majority of the Israeli population did not support spending waste amounts of money for the military operation to protect few settlers. Of course the hardliners and well organized settler movements protested. Did they leave Gaza as a healthy state? (For example, did they give them a port to do some trade?) I remember that they destroyed the only power plant. You know that most people are really poor there and would follow anyone promising some better life.
And the most important fact is that more settlements have been established or extended, systematically during any "more peaceful" period. Recently, the settlements around Jerusalem were systematically joined to a ring. Even if the Palestinians got access to Jerusalem and the al-Aqsa Mosque in a peace treaty -- and no treaty without this could be communicated to a majority of the Palestinians -- these settlements would divide it from the West Bank. And in contrast to some others, these settlements are supposed to stay there according to the current Israeli government. I do not have to tell you that by international law you are not allowed to establish settlements in occupied territories.
Why do you think the Camp David talks failed? The Palestinians laid on the table how far they would go, that was used as a starting point with more and more concessions from the Palestinians until their leaders had to leave realizing that any agreement that was possible would have them loose their majority in Palestine immediately rendering the treaty worthless.
The reason the Camp David accords failed is because the Palestinians insisted upon the right of return for all Palestinian refugees, knowing that would be physically impossible for Israel to accommodate. There was no way that Israel would accede to a treaty that would essentially grant the Palestinians an overwhelming numerical advantage over Israeli citizens.
By international law, the refugees are allowed to return home. Israel cannot take that away. That was all Israel was supposed to acknowledge. Most refugees would not want to return to mainland Israel. They could have been compensated. By international law, they would have to be -- they have the right to return home as individuals and no representative could have made a treaty denying these rights.
The problem is that most Palestinians and most Israelis would find a compromise (even with Jerusalem being a problem). It is just a few hardliners on every side trying to prevent it. By believing the the propaganda you spread that most Israelis want "peace for land" and the Palestinians do not want a reasonable peace treaty, you support these hardliners.
And a reasonable peace would leave a healthy state of Palestine with economic possibilities -- that is not divided by countless settlements and in control of their borders. These borders should have something to do with the "green line" and not with the wall. Obviously that would have to include the Jordan valley and access to Jerusalem. Currently, so many Palestinians in the West Bank want just peace that they would probably not insist on exchange for every peace of land beyond the "green line" as long as most of the settlements (and military protecting it) would go.
By the way, do you know what the occupation means for the every day life of Palestinians, even during the periods of "relative calmness"? Have you been there? You will not find that in the mainstream media you site.
