When I was studying international relations, a few eons ago, one of my professors had a theory about trouble spots in the world. He called them "shatterbelt zones- don't know if the term was original with him. As I recall, he defined them as areas in which 2 different groups of people claimed exactly the same territory. There were other criteria, which I can't recall. He looked at the problem as basically intractable.

But in his designation of such "zones" he included South Africa. So he appears to have been wrong in seeing all of such "zones" as unsolvable problems.

This indicates there is in fact hope--still.

I suppose the main difference between the 2 problems is that in the Mideast, not only are the 2 groups claiming exactly the same territory, but there's another factor not found in South Africa. States outside the actual area are using the belligerents--on both sides-- as their proxies. It's not a question of "puppetmasters"--they certainly don't have complete control--but the states outside seem to be able to stoke the conflict when it suits them--or at least take advantage of the situation--and obstruct efforts to solve it.

In the case of South Africa, many states outside seem to have been in favor of a peaceful accomodation.

So it appears that in order to solve the Mideast situation, the states outside have to be--all--convinced that there's no incentive to encourage the conflict, that their self-interest lies in peace.