Israel-Palestinian conflict has lasted for many decades despite several trials by world leaders and organizations to resolve the contentious issues in the region. Both sides have used various tactics to attempt to achieve their goals. Such tactics includes wars, civil disobedience, terrorism, walls and barriers, peace talks, assassinations, non-recognition of sovereignty, and call for annihilation of sovereign state among other tactics. Leaders of both sides seem to be dogged in their core ideology and not willing to give in an inch of compromise to avoid retribution from their various conservative citizen ideologues. Even when some form of compromise seems to be struck during negotiated peace talks, the agreement slowly breaks down and reverts back to the old non-compromising ideologies for the reasons stated above.

From Israeli perspective, it is a matter of non-repetition of the history of defeat, captivity, exile in foreign lands, and the holocaust. From Palestinian perspective, it is a determined desire to regain the status of the custodian of many parts of the land of Palestine currently occupied by Israel and to enjoy the attendant freedom and sovereignty in a land that they have always know. A reasonable mind would agree that both sides adopted these expectations based on history and experience. This is why it had been very difficult to negotiate peace by asking any sides to compromise some of above core expectations. After many decades of conflicts between the two sides, it is obvious that wars between Israel and the surrounding Arab nations on one hand and hostilities between Israel and Palestinian on the other have all failed to bring about peace in the region. Dialogues mediated by third party nations and organizations have also failed to reconcile both sides. In the opinion of the author, the mediated negotiations have failed in part because it was based on the coexistence of both sides as two sovereign states but failed to provide explicit explanations of how both states could function side by side without conflicts in a region where the geography, demography, and defense of one state could potentially overlaps with the second state. In addition, previous negotiation also failed to define the extent of sovereignty (full sovereignty, half sovereignty or passive sovereignty).

A new approach to peace between Israel and Palestine must be adopted in the 21^st century and such approach must be left between the two peoples leaving together in the region. History has shown that external mediators bring along with them their biases that is sometimes rooted in local politics in their various countries. In the light of the geography of the region and culture of both parties, the author suggests a step by step march towards final peace in the region as stated below.

• Covenant of life and declaration of the entire region as holy pilgrimage land: The leaders of both sides must initiate a meeting to agree on a covenant of non-spilling of blood between Palestinians and Israelis and such covenant must be enshrined in their faith, religion, culture, and all fabric of lives in the region. The entire Palestine and Israeli territory must be declared as world’s Holy Land.
• Establish permanent Palestinian-Israeli Holy Land Congress:  The joint congress will establish laws on how to enforce the covenant, govern, and share revenue and cost in overlapping areas of the Holy Land jointly owned by both parties.
• Create Palestine civil Sovereign state similar to the Vatican in Rome: The Palestine state shall have functional independent government and economy with unarmed civil security. The Israeli sovereign state shall provide military protection to the entire Holy Land regions during any external invasion of the region but must not interfere with Palestinian civil security. The Palestinian civil security must protect the Palestinian citizens domestically and the Israeli military must protect Palestinian citizens from external aggression.
• Borders and cities in dispute: After both states are up and running side by side from their current locations and territory, both sides should negotiate in good fate for borders and cities that could be shared or owned permanently or owned on need basis. Peaceful dialogue based on honest and brotherly plea could soften hearts and lead to unexpected concessions on both sides.

The key to peace would be to avoid spilling hairs on having one side move from their dogged ideological positions. Rather, it would be better to negotiate from the strengths of both sides. Palestinians have lived and managed the land of Palestine and its culture for many generations. It would make sense to concede some managerial and cultural custody of the holy land to them. On the other hand, Israelis are known for their powerful military and commerce and it would make sense to concede the protection of the entire holy land to them; and also deploy their commercial ingenuity to assist the young Palestinian sovereign state to get on its feet quickly.