The first, and possibly most well known solution is known as the "Two State Solution". This plan calls for "two states for two peoples" and would see an independent Palestine alongside the already internationally recognised State of Israel. This is normally seen as the majority of Palestinian and Israeli moderates' favoured choice however with both governments led by what has been argued as extremists, the Palestinian Hamas and Israeli far right, the views of the moderate majority can quite often be overlooked. There has been a huge effort from the United Nations to push through this solution however with limited success. In 1982, the two state solution was embraced by the mainstream Palestinian leadership, the PLO, at the Arab Summit in Fez, though once again, no significant progress was made. The two states' borders would be in accordance to those seen in 1967 with some slight modifications. This solution has been seen as the one with the greatest potential, it means that Israel would continue to exist, along with Zionism as well as the far right alliance of Likud and Yisrael Beitenu able to still have power. Over the border, Palestine would have safety and structure as well as being able to control its own people without the threat of illegal settlements by their current occupiers. On the other hand, the concept of a two state solution can be seen as irrelevant. Regardless of whether they are two separate states or not, it has been said that conflict between Israel and Palestine would not cease, the only difference would be they would be fighting for international borders. Moreover, the influence of the USA, though they have been seen to support the two state idea, would be sceptical to simply handover independent territory to, what they regard as, terrorists, in the form of Hamas, the democratically elected government of Palestine. All in all, although the two state solution is widely recognised as the international consensus for peace between Israel and Palestine, the reality is that it is not that simple.
A solution that has been on the rise in recent years has been the "One State Solution". This would bring together Israel and Palestine within the boundaries on one nation and one state. Instead of the two state solution, which some believe emphasises the difference and necessity to separate these two groups, the one state concept could encourage consensus, cooperation and a coming together of two conflicting groups in unity. This solution is allegedly gaining a lot more support in Palestine, with citizens growing tired of the continued failure to succeed in securing a two state outcome. It would also create a secular state which would welcome and tolerate all or no religion and hence supposedly remove any religiously fuelled conflict or hatred. The co-founder of Hamas, Mahmoud Al-Zahar was once quoted as saying he "did not rule out the possibility of having Jews, Muslims and Christians living under the sovereignty of an Islamic state". The one state method promotes unity rather than divide, however the likelihood of this ever happening is very slim indeed. Conflict would continue whether in its present form or simply as a civil war within one state. On the Israeli side, they argue that this would make Jews an ethnic minority and therefore susceptible to tyranny of the majority and oppression, moreover the loss of the Jewish state would be a great loss for Zionism. Another risk of a one state outcome is that it would not be economically viable, with the Jewish middle class, intelligentsia possibly emigrating elsewhere as a result of the increase in taxes on the middle classes in order to support the considerably less developed Palestinian population within the current Israeli social welfare programme. Finally, the risk is that a one state solution is the justification Israel would use for absolute occupation of all of Palestinian territory, continuing the oppression and second-class status of Palestinians rather than pursuing the hypothetical secular and pluralist state that the one state solution envisages. Overall, the one state idea would be very difficult to carry out with a complete overhaul of all aspects of life needed from religion to laws, taxes to welfare.
A lesser know solution, and one that receives certainly less attention and possibly less support is the three state solution. This would see Israel remain as it is (though with illegal settlements removed, because, well, they are illegal), Gaza would go under the control of Egypt and the West Bank would transfer its sovereignty to Jordan. This solution would be most unpopular within Palestine as it essentially destroys the existence of Palestine, instead merging them into the neighbouring countries. In a Foreign Policy article in early June of this year by Israeli deputy defence minister Danny Danon outlined how the peace process should no longer just be about Israel and Palestine, but instead incorporate the surrounding states of Egypt and Jordan. He believes that "after 20 years of failed attempts at reaching a two-state solution, now is the time to try something new." Danon continues to suggest that this solution is a viable one and with careful diplomacy and negotiations, a new era of peace in the region can emerge. A definite pro of this solution is that Palestine does not necessarily need to disappear, rather it just severs ties with Israel and deepens links with its Arab neighbours, as Danon suggests "Gaza's electricity... [currently] supplied by a power station in the Israeli city of Ashkelon... [could change to] Egypt's Rafah". Nevertheless, this suggestion has been seen to just complicate the whole peace process further, as opposed to just trying to reach an agreement between two parties (Palestine and Israel), you have to now find concurrence between four (Palestine, Israel, Egypt and Jordan). This, according to the Turkish PM, Erdogan, would be especially difficult with Egypt involved, after he claimed yesterday (25th July) that Egyptian leader Sisi was an "illegitimate tyrant" and could not be relied upon to negotiate a truce in Gaza.
To conclude, these three solutions are by no means the exclusive list of ways in which peace and stability can be brought to the people of Palestine and Israel. There are umpteen different concepts and proposals, these three are just the general gist of those put forward. One thing, however, is for certain, no peace will come about with violence and the killing of innocent citizens will just create more and more tension and resentment on both sides, so the sooner the peace negotiations begin, the better.
Please feel free to voice your opinion in the comment section below and the poll in the sidebar. Remember to be civil and gracious in your debate. Also please don't shout at me for anything I may have said, I have tried to keep this article as neutral as possible, stating the facts and opinions from both sides, if you have an opinion that I may have missed or want to expand on anything, write it below in the comments. Thanks!