A few days ago I read this op-ed and I keep thinking about it:
Before and since that op-ed there have been several others proposing various ways to make peace, but this one strikes me as fundamentally different.
In brief, it proposes that the thing that would really mean something to the Palenstinians would be an apology from Israel. And the thing that would really mean something to Israel would be if Palestinians would recognize Israel's right to exist (and change the textbooks, etc. that deny it).
First off, this comes from actually asking each side, "What would you do if the other side did this, or that?" and picking the most positive response. Actual data and conversations with at least representatives of each side.
Secondly, it is based on forgiveness. Apologies and "right to exist" language can be dismissed as empty words, but how else would forgiveness be expressed? And if the words are empty, then just give it a try, if it doesn't work you haven't lost anything material. I think even an empty recitation of the words can pull dialogue in the right direction.
If saying the words is somehow compromising spiritual values or some kind of idealism, I respond that Jesus' words and actions were condemned for somehow compromising who God was, God's "spiritual values," so to speak. That got him tried for blasphemy.
I may be missing something but this seems like something that's just worth trying. Most likely it smacks of naive idealism. And I still don't see how Israel can give up the West Bank given the constant flow of rockets into (and out of) Gaza. I still keep thinking of Jesus' words. Words are worth trying.
Feel free to disagree in the comments.