Someone (I think the name was "Ito") directed readers on Rambling Hal's blog to this post by a gentleman named Ali Shakir. I must say, I share just about every opinion he expressed in his post.
If we are to take it as a given that the country of Israel is not going anywhere (which I'm guessing isn't really an option in a lot of people's eyes, but let's pretend for a moment, shall we?) then alternatives to all this violent activity have to be found. This can only take a positive course if the Palestinians had access to a decent infrastructure, medical facilities, and an education. Denying access to all these things invites the sense of hopelessness, frustration, and dependence that can cripple a people and put resentment and malice in the place of hope.
So let's imagine that somehow, it's financially and logistically possible to give Palestine those facilities. What then? What if Hamas, for instance, opposes anything less than the removal of Israel from the map? Would they be stubborn enough in their conviction to deny their people access to these new facilities? Would people who took advantage of these facilities be branded as scabs, traitors, and of abetting the enemy? I imagine they would be.
I recall a story I read on someone's blog (which I'm going to paraphrase horribly) and you could easily substitute the word "Arab" for various different cultures and people.
An Arab man is being given a tour of Hell. He sees enormous bubbling pots filled with screaming people trying desperately to climb out. Demons are posted at the pots to force back the damned with pitchforks. Each pot contains a different race of people, and so when they arrive at the pot filled with Arabs, he notices there is no demon posted there.
"Ah, this must be a show of mercy for a good and suffering people" he says.
"No, it is because we have no need for the demons here... Anytime one of them tries to climb out, the others pull him back down."