Bryan and Victor are battling away on the comments to this post. In my inaccurate summary, Victor is saying that since no presently suggested solution of the Israel-Palestine conflict is possible because the Palestinians will not give peace in return for anything, Israel should move towards a ger-toshav solution. (You'll have to read his comments for the full details). Bryan's liberal upbringing (his words) can't accept that, and wishes some sort of two-state solution will work.
I'm mostly with Victor on the analysis, but with Bryan on the resolution, even if it won't (be a resolution). Moreover, there's a fundamental tactical problem with Victor's position, in that he assumes he knows in advance what the Palestinians will say, mean and do, so he's building a countering reality to deal with that. Although he doesn't intend it, this position is logically similar to the position of the Palestinians and the enemies of Israel who pretend to care about the Palestinians: Since Israel never intends to relinquish its control over the Palestinians, the reasoning goes, therefore whenever Israel does anything that remotely resembles willingness to compromise with the Palestinians, by definition they can't really mean it and thus the Palestinians are right in rejecting it.
I prefer a fact-based policy: let's try whatever we decide to try, and test the results in the real world. True, nothing tried so far has ever resulted in a Palestinian willingness to live in peace alongside Israel, and that needs to be recognized and understood, but it doesn't mean we should stop trying. While not being reckless, of course.
Sorry Victor. Not this time.