Which makes the continued efforts by the PLO and other anti-Zionist elements to maintain an influence the whole process all the more ironic. They are literally in a no win situation, as Rabi pointed out above. The only real solution is peace, not blaming, not vindication, not restitutions, nor reparations, just peace.

In the long run, the goal is what the peace activists folks call "Positive peace" which is when enmity between two peoples stops, and they basically perceive one another as fellow humans first and foremost. A good example of that is French and Germans today; not all, but perhaps most, or at least most in the border region. I understand there is still alot of smoldering resentment toward the descendants of Nazi collaborators in some villages and areas where collaborators were integral to the resistance being pretty brutally suppressed.

At the other end of the continuum is Total War: by definition (on average) two individuals of the rival groups perceive one another as unavoidable enemies. An example of that would have been French and Germans during the war.

Somewhere between Total War and Positive Peace are a few other milestones on the continuum of collective violence and peace: Limited War, Cold War, Terrorism, and "Negative Peace" which is the point where enmity remains high, but violence has become rare if not non-existent. Negative Peace exists in many places around the world, Yugoslavia and Cyprus come to mind.

It is an interesting question of human psychosocial dynamics what factors contribute to versus retard progress from Limited War to Negative Peace to Positive Peace. I would love to read an historically and theoretically rich examination of this topic based on actual empirical observations.

But having read quite a bit of history, and in particular military history, I have a tentative conclusion about what factors are salient to retarding progress from War to Peace: retention of an In-Group vs Out-Group mentality for one. I see both Palestinians and Israelis being widely guilty of this. For another, reference to events and ideas that are highly remote in time and space, e.g., historical wrongs. No body can change history, and if someone demands that you do, what options do you have? Lastly, a sense of hope/pride/confidence/duty to carry on the fight.

Now, my speculative observations of what contributes to progress from War to Peace? While it might be nice to think that some kind of warm fuzzy "we are all one big family" stuff would solve conflicts, I see very little if any real proof that it has ever actually done so.  Also, while getting people to let bygones be bygones and "drop it" might seem to be a fairly reasonable way to get a large fraction of a population to disapprove of continued conflict, the fact is that, it takes only a very small fraction of a population to act as rabble-rousers to keep sentiments of enmity and vindication alive in any human social group. We are by design very sensitive to social cheaters and ideologues and propagandists are implicitly aware of how this part of the human psyche operates. In a globalized world of telecommunications, the opportunities for the rabble rousers to keep the flames of vengeance burning in just enough hearts to keep the conflict moving along is much exacerbated.

Every conflict in history of which I am aware which has progressed from War to Negative Peace and thence in some cases to Positive Peace, has been accomplished not by brokering resolution, reconciliation, and renewal, but by crushing hope/pride/confidence/duty to carry on the fight. I hate to admit it, but that is where I stand. Sure, I'd love to imagine that we can all just get along. But until group X which, for matters of over-determined socio-cultural context, bears a grudge against group Y, has either defeated group Y or been defeated by group Y, I see little empirical hope of that the grudge will just fade out.