In the case of Israel, it seems that they've decided that they have bad choices. As Benny Morris puts it, "Morris responded that "[t]here are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing."

Meanwhile, the Palestinians seem to have a choice (at this point) between being ruled by corrupt leftovers of Arafat's PLO and Hamas. As long as they can blame the Israelis for everything, their leaders can fail their voters without consequence.

Both sides have substantial groups for whom continued conflict serves their purpose. Unfortunately, this leads to enormous suffering on the part of ordinary people on both sides, who, so far haven't figured out a way to fashion true peace.

Meanwhile, my tax money goes to (directly) buying the weapons Israel uses and my energy money goes (indirectly) to the funders of the Palestinian factions.

One thing I know: anyone saying it's simple is a moron.

I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing."

False argument. The ethnic cleansing had nothign to do with genocide, but esxtablishing a Jewish majority in Israel.

Meanwhile, the Palestinians seem to have a choice (at this point) between being ruled by corrupt leftovers of Arafat's PLO and Hamas. As long as they can blame the Israelis for everything, their leaders can fail their voters without consequence.

Israel have made a choice and elected a right wign extremist adn a facist to power. In any case, Hamas exist becasue Israel funded and suported them to begin with. Also, Israel varrested Bargoutti during the last elkections and saw to it that he was not around to campaing for the electiojns, so yeah, they re right to blame Israel for the choices they have.

One thing I know: anyone saying it's simple is a moron.

It is simple. Those who argue thatit is complicated are those who interests lie is stalling policitcal settlement.

If it's so simple, how come when both populations said they wanted a two state solution, they couldn't get it done?

If it's so simple, how come Israelis don't see the evil of the settlements and stop them?

If it's so simple, how come Palestinians don't see the evil of suicide and targeting random civilians and stop the suicide bombings?

If it's so simple, how come the U.S. supports Israel almost unquestioningly, and at the same time presents itself as credible intermediary and the U.S. electorate doesn't see through it and stop it?

"Those who argue that it is complicated are those whose interests lie in stalling the political settlement," is complete bullshit. If it were simple, it would be done. I'd say it's the people who say it's simple who prolong the conflict, no matter what their conscious intentions are.

Unless you're a pacifist, in which case you can simply say, "Stop killing each other." (Good luck with that.) If you are, I've misread you.

Yes we have both populations said they wanted a two state solution, and only one of them meaning it. A 2 state solution woudl involved one side giving up land they stole, so ask yourself, who stands to gain from a 2 state solution?

If it's so simple, how come Israelis don't see the evil of the settlements and stop them?

Becasue some of these Israeli's happen to think the settlements their God given right and the rest are too apathetic to do anything about it. Ask a car thief why he doesn't return a car he stole. The answer won't be becaue it's complicated.

If it's so simple, how come Palestinians don't see the evil of suicide and targeting random civilians and stop the suicide bombings?

Because peaceful means haven't produced results.

If it's so simple, how come the U.S. supports Israel almost unquestioningly

Because it serves their foreign policy interests.

Like I said, the answer is simple. The issue is whether anyone has the will to so what is needed to fix it.

I don't claim to speak for the Palestinians and their decisions or the Israelis and theirs. I do notice telling either what to decide has been a non-productive enterprise for a long time. My own opinion is that if both sides had a negotiable idea of a solution it would have happened by now.

Your post implies there two equal parties in the negotiation. The one unassailable fact is that one is the occupier and the other the occupied. The leverage this provides is obvious... hence the need for a honest third party.