In what may become President Obama's first international challenge, even as this is being written the Israeli military is bombing the Gaza strip. Although, Israel blames Hamas and claims they have no choice but to answer Hamas' rockets with force, we must realize that Israel's overwhelming military superiority allows Israel to dictate the direction of the conflict. We currently see a battle between two viewpoints in Israel. The hawks want to use force to suppress Hamas, arguing that Hamas only understands violence, and stop the only way to stop rockets once and enforce a peace on Israeli terms is through the use of violence. Another side recommends restraint, and wants to fight the causes of the frustration and violence within Gaza - a recognition that Israel will forever be bordered by Palestinian state and so long as the territory is a failed state with an estimated 80% unemployment rate, the violence will continue. The result is a middle of the road approach, that ends up hurting, rather than helping the situation.

Take, for example, Israel's current actions - an embargo followed by airstrikes. So far, they seem to have targeted a jail, police stations, and hit civilian targets. The release of prisoners, and the destruction of the police force - the only check against the most radical elements of Hamas - serves only benefit the most extreme elements of Hamas. For months now, the Israeli government's embargo around the Gaza Strip has been a of collective punishment against the Palestinian people. Not only is collective punishment a violation of the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions, most psychologists agree that the use of collective punishment is largely ineffective. Anger over their dire situation, as Gaza citizen search desperately for food, medicine, and other necessities, doesn't extend to the extreme elements of Hamas that are firing rockets into Israel - rather it is directed against Israel for imposing what many Gaza residence see as being an unjust punishment for a crime they haven't committed. This lack of food and medicine also hurts the weakest - the sick, very young, and elderly - setting the groundwork for a humanitarian crisis and a loss of international prestige. Once again, Israel's actions are only making the situation worse, not better.

In this essay, we recognize that the current strategy is a failure, and by examining the history and root causes, we can find solutions to the problem. At The Party of Common Sense we are ever hopeful that the new administration, under President Obama will push for a solution to this seemingly intractable problem.

The well respected author Thomas Friedman has pinpointed the main issue with the Palestinian/Israel problem. The story begins in 1897 Theodor Herzl, an Austrian newspaperman, held the first World Zionist Conference. The result was a statement that Jews, as a persecuted people, should have their own homeland. There were three parts to this dream: it should be located in the Jewish biblical homeland, it should be a democracy, and it should be rule by Jewish law.

Progress towards this dream was first made in 1917, after the British forces occupied Palestine. In what became the Balfour Declaration, the British foreign minister, Balfour, promised Zionist Rotschild British help to give Palestine to Zionists. However, it wasn't until after World War II in 1947, when the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 181 that partitioned Palestine, giving the half million Jewish residents 56% of Palestine, and the 1.3 million Palestinians the remaining 44%. The Zionists declared the formation of the state of Israel in 1948 and evicted the Palestinians from their lands - causing a Palestinian refugee crisis. In addition to the land provided for by the UN Resolution 181, the Zionists occupied and annexed additional lands including the Galilee in the North, Aujah in the South, West Jerusalem and the land corridor leading to it. With these additional lands, Israel ended up with a total of 78% of Palestine. In response, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 194 calling for the repatriation of the Palestinians and compensation for property taken. Successive Israeli governments have never complied with this resolution. At this point, the Zionists dream was almost complete: the state of Israel was formed as a democracy, ruled by Jewish law, and occupied most of the Jewish biblical homelands. The only thing missing was the remainder of the land.

In 1967, following the Six Day's War, Israel was able to occupy the Gaza strip (then controlled by Egypt), the Syrian controlled Golan Heights, and the West Bank (which was under Jordanian rule). Now came the dilemma: should Israel complete the dream and annex the lands, or return them to their prior owners or the Palestinian people themselves. This argument has raged ever since.

Ideally, Israel could expel the Palestinian people and annex the land, however, since no other Arab state has agreed to take them, this would result in a humanitarian catastrophe on an order that the modern civilized societies would not allow. There is a certain amount of irony here: Hitler's Germany, in control of all the levers of power, was faced with the dilemma of ridding Germany of unwanted Jews population and now a Jewish state with all the levers of power, is faced with a question of what to do with unwanted Palestinians. For that reason alone, a degree of compassion is called for - one that would preclude harsher, radical solutions to the problem. So, the options are limited. If Israel annexes the land and makes it part of Israel, then the Palestinians would become Israelis. If they are denied the right to vote, Israel no longer would be a true democracy, however, if they are allowed to vote, based on current demographic trends, Arabs would outnumber Jews by 2024 - making Israel an Arab, not Jewish, state. No matter what is done, some part of the original dream will have to be sacrificed - the land, the democracy, or the Jewish nature of the country.

Initially, Israeli leaders tend to lean towards annexation and completing the dream until they realize the problems associated with it. Ultimately, they seemed to continue to return to a "land for peace" deal - with the creation of a Palestinian state in Gaza and West Bank in exchange for acceptance of the existence of Israel with its current borders. This is unacceptable to the most radical elements within Israel, and they have gone to great ends to prevent movement towards this solution including the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. Others have created settlements within the disputed territory, in an attempt to force the government to annex the land. At The Party of Common Sense we see few options except a "land for peace" deal.

Currently, the hawks and hardliners seem to be in control. The Israeli Army is massing on the borders of Gaza, with the seeming intent to invade. However, this strategy has been proven ineffective in the past. In 1982 and again in 2005, Israeli invaded and occupied Lebanon with the goal of forcing an end to harassment along their border. Both times, Israel was forced to withdraw. Likewise, the first Palestinian Uprising (Intifada) in 1987 was only put to end with the Oslo accord negotiated by President Carter in 1993, which essentially outlined a "land for peace" deal. As part of the agreement, a Palestinian homeland was to be established in Gaza and the West Bank in 1999. In 2000, realizing that there would be no Palestinian state, the second Palestinian Uprising occurred - ending only in 2005 with the withdraw of Israel troops from the occupied territories. Could an occupation this time end differently?

The recipe for a successful occupation of a hostile peoples is time proven. Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, and many others throughout history have paved the way. Invade, and install a puppet government. Use fear to terrorize the people into compliance. The tools are a secret police to ferret out dissidents, prisons, summary executions, and extreme violence. Paralyze the people and rule through fear. The question is: Can a democracy effectively conduct such a campaign without alienating its own people and its own standing the modern world? We think not. Although it may be a short term success, the long term cost of the occupation will cause it to fail.

So if bombings, occupation, a blockade, and starvation are not effective strategies - what can be done? We believe a number of steps need to occur to ensure lasting peace.

First, both the Palestinians and Israelis need to get serious about peace. The Palestinian extremists who refuse to accept Israel as a nation need to be controlled and the Palestinian people as a whole need to accept that Israel has a right to exist. Likewise, Israeli hard-liners need to be sidelined and they need to stop building settlements. Leaders on both sides need to make a serious commitment to peace. If this is to happen, it will likely require international pressure. If the US is to play a role, it must become a trusted intermediary and an honest broker. Western guilt of the Holocaust has tilted US bias towards Israel. The US must step back and become objective in its view of the facts. For example, in 2005 Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers. Clearly this is unacceptable, however, so was Israel's illegal use of American made cluster anti-personnel munitions during the closing days of the campaign against Hezbollah. US politicians were falling over each other to heap praise upon Israel before, during, and after the campaign - leaving little doubt of where America allegiances lie. The US must point out transgressions and pressure both sides to make a serious commitment for peace. Our $91 billion in US government aid to 7.2 million Israelis represents $12,500 per person in Israel, and just less than half of their GDP - this should provide ample leverage with the Israeli government to do the right thing and make serious efforts towards peace. Likewise, the failed economies and lack of support (beyond token support) throughout the Arab world should make the Palestinians realize they are alone and need to find a solution.

Second, having a failed state on any state border is counterproductive, especially one where an estimated 80% of people are unemployed. With little more than a life of meager subsistence, many Palestinians feel they have nothing to lose and are quick to join the fight against Israel. It would be better to give them something to lose. Israel will have to defend itself with walls, border crossings and the like - but should emphasis the rebuilding of the Palestinian economy - not the destruction of it. It would be helpful if Arab nations step up and assist the Palestinian people.

Third, the Settlements need to come down. These have been counter-productive to the peace process, and expensive to build, protect, and maintain. Jerusalem, needs to be an international city - one under the protection of neither Israel nor Palestine - but rather the U.N. or another international unbiased organization. Israel will not likely give back the land it has taken, but needs to acknowledge UN Resolution 194 and provide some compensation to Palestinian land owners.

Fourth, both sides need to admit to the transgressions and disavow future activities. Hijackings, killing of Israeli athletes, and suicide bombers are not an answer for the Palestinians. Neither are targeted assassinations, "collateral damage" (killing of civilians), the Sabra and Shatila massacres in 1982 in Lebanon, ignoring UN mandates and illegally annexing territory for Israel. There is now a full generations of Israelis and Palestinians that have grown up learning to hate each other, and no one expects that to disappear overnight - however, without some truth commission that clears the air - we'll just see increasingly acrimonious recriminations and more bloodshed. The healing must begin.

We at The Party of Common Sense believe that peace in the middle east is possible, but only if each side wants it. Although it is clear that with its infinitely superior military power, Israel would clearly win, radicals on both sides would prefer a fight to the finish. On the Israeli side, a slaughter of the Palestinian people this would provide a "final solution" to the Palestinian problem. For the Palestinians, they would expose Israelis as blood thirsty murders and perhaps rally the Arab world to their cause. Radicals on both sides need to be kept in control, and each side must make some concessions. Land-for-peace is the only reasonable solution. President Obama must remain an honest broker and can shepherd each side to the negotiating table - but it will be up to each side to chose peace over war.

It is the season where one speaks of Peace and Joy, and New Year's resolutions are made. We have hope that 2009 could be the year when progress can be made in the Middle East. From all of us at The Party of Common Sense, we would also like to take the opportunity to wish you and your family peace and prosperity in 2009.