With regards to “F” and other comments above:

I think, having observed this from afar for most of my life, that for a “Mid-East Peace Process” to work, you have to reach an un-imaginable level of approval from the Arab side, or else get them to advance to popular, consensual politics. Because whenever some small faction is opposed, intramural violence breaks out, until the majority is motivated to pick of the sword again and repeat the hostilities previously suppressed by “treaty”.
The success of Egypt in living up the “Camp David Accords” has a lot to do with the fact that they are a pretty efficient tyranny, and effectively police the Muslim Brotherhood and other militant organizations within Egypt that would love to start up the war with Israel again.

If you believe Michael Totten’s descriptions, a majority of the Lebanese would also like to “make peace” on some level with Israel, but as things presently stand in Lebanon (and Syria) and the presence of Hezbollah, that probably isn’t going to happen tomorrow, next week or next year.
It is therefore, in my humble opinion, not possible to create a climate for a consensual peace agreement between all parties, because most (most? all!) of the Arab parties do not have consensual governments (democracy?) that the citizens respect and place enough trust and faith in to allow such an agreement to take place.
We are stuck in the endless Groundhog Day of strife because there is not enough political incentive for any government on the Arab side to make such an agreement. See how that worked out for Anwar Sadat?
Iraq was to be a start, but that nascent democracy can still be reversed by the forces on the ground in the Middle East and by the politically stupid and malevolent in this country, some of whom are in high positions in the government and the academy.