TWO-STATE SOLUTION. That is the only answer to the Palestinian conundrum; the Arab-Israeli problem and now, the Iran War.

Neither the US nor Israel can bomb the Palestinian issue out of existence. It only creates recruiting sergeants for future generations.

Hitler tried it with his Final Solution. Even though six million Jews died in horrific circumstances he failed. The Jewish state rose from the ashes of the Holocaust with a determination that they will never again face extermination and that the land of Israel is theirs by right of God’s promise to Abraham.

Problem was that the Biblical land was occupied by other people who called themselves Palestinians. They were not a state. They were more like a tribe within the Ottoman Empire and later the British Mandate. They had land. That land was taken from them by the Jewish state in wars in 1948, 1956 and 1967.

But Israel’s religious right-wingers demand the Biblical lands of Eretz Israel and the entire country fears that a Palestinian state on their borders will create a permanently hostile nation as their next-door neighbour.

Wake up Israel, a permanently hostile neighbour is exactly what you have created with decades of on-off bombing campaigns and land attacks. The only answer is a two-state solution which recognises that both sides have more to gain from peace than war.

It will not be easy. It will take years of carefully crafted negotiations, and both sides will need to keep the goal firmly in sight. It will start with confidence-building measures. They can be trivial things which create an obvious benefit to both sides. Once those are in place and creating results than it will be more difficult to return to war because it will mean giving up the gains achieved with the confidence building measures.

This has been done before. The best formerly intractable example is Northern Ireland. In the 1970s no one could envisage an end to the Troubles in the province. The IRA and Ulster paramilitaries were busy shooting each other and the British army and government was caught in the political and military crossfire.

But even at the height of the troubles in the 1970s there were back-channel discussions between the British government and Gerry Adams for the IRA. These led to the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement which admitted the Irish government into the process in an advisory role. The Irish nationalists were encouraged by this largely symbolic but important gesture.

In 1994 the IRA announced a ceasefire. The Protestant paramilitaries followed suit. The ceasefire was followed by limited talks. The ceasefire quickly broke down, but it proved that the violence could be paused and talks could be held.

All sides agreed that an outside force was required and the United States was brought in with Senator George Mitchell as chairman of multi-party talks which included militants which had previously been considered beyond the pale. Mitchell established three ground rules for talks: A commitment to non-violence; disarmament and democratic methods.

The result was the Good Friday Agreement. The discussions started with limited practical steps; built habits of cooperation and then created institutions for talks. There were setbacks and all sides had to accept them and keep their eye on the goal of peace.

The agreement is not perfect. Many criticise it for being too rigid. There has been limited violence and dysfunctional politics, but the province is stable if fragile. Northern Ireland will continue to be a problem that needs to be managed but at least its different factions know that they can stop fighting each other.

There are other examples of confidence building measures helping to resolve intractable problems. In the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis a nuclear clash between the Soviet Union and the US seemed inevitable. Then in1963 the Washington-Moscow hotline was installed. The two sides started talking. This led to the SALT process, the gradual reduction in the nuclear arsenals of both sides and eventually the end of the Cold War.

Egypt and Israel were locked in perpetual war. Then Anwar Sadat flew to Jerusalem and President Jimmy Carter negotiated the Camp David Accords. The two countries have had peace ever since. Uneasy, but peace.

South Africa suffered apartheid for half a century. FW de Klerk realised that the Black majority could not be repressed forever. Confidence building talks were initiated with Nelson Mandela while he was still in prison. These reassured the White Nationalist government. Mandela was released. Further talks were held and South Africa moved to a Black majority rule in which the White minority could live and prosper.

In every case, slow, careful diplomacy has been the answer. Attempts to resolve issues with the sledgehammer of war have failed. So have the imposition of deadlines and threats. In the end they just create more problems.

In the case of the Iran War, it has changed the world’s perception of the United States. Many countries have been concerned that so much power is concentrated in one country. But they have accepted that America was a benevolent state. The attack on Iran has changed that perception it will be difficult for the US to regain its mantle of benevolence.

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”