A UN-enforced ceasefire, backed by international sanctions for violations from either side, calling for an end to all violent attacks (including targeted assassinations by Israel and missile fire from Gaza); the reopening of Gaza's border with Israel and resumption of normal trade, subject to inspections; a prisoner exchange; and rapid dismantling of the illegal Israeli settlements wouldn't make a bad preamble for a return to negotiations on an independent Palestinian state. And an initial good-faith gesture from Israel in the direction of eventual, inevitable compromises on right of return (a limited annual refugee return quota, and/or establishment of an international fund to help with the costs of resettling refugees) would certainly help to facilitate that process.
Realistically, though, what's in it for Israel here?
1) A ceasefire will likely just allow Hamas to recoup, rebuild, and declare victory by just staying alive (like Hezbollah in Lebanon). In addition, they will likely take advantage of the ceasefire to increase their weaponry capabilities, much as they did last time.
2) Considering Hamas is a declared terrorist organization that took over Gaza by force, again, what does a resumption of trade accomplish besides allowing them to regroup and probably resume suicide bombings? Even the best of inspections aren't perfect, unless we have every piece of cargo and every individual completely searched, which is very time consuming, expensive, and likely unrealistic.
3) A prisoner exchange....you mean hundreds, if not thousands, of Palestinian prisoners, in exchange for a handful of Israeli prisoners? Not to trivialize the plights of any innocent individuals in this, but, considering the logical percentages who are probably guilty, does this not again bring up concerns regarding suicide bombings and other terrorist acts, which, I presume, is the reason a good number of these Palestinians were arrested in the first place?
4) The dismantlement of illegal Israeli settlements is a step in the right direction, but I find the latter demand regarding a "right of return" to be quite curious. Reading this statement in its entirety, and it reads like a manifesto to undo the existence of Israel completely.
I haven't commented in this thread much, admittedly, probably because I'm not generally interested in a partisan flame war--which a topic like this inevitably brings--but a lot of this reads like wide-eyed idealism with little regard for pragmatism nor balance.
The interesting thing about most of these points is that they generally do not stand up to merit. Most of these things have already been done before. Ceasefires? We've had numerous--none of which have been productive one bit. We've had embargoes and trade resumptions, many lopsided prisoner exchanges (i.e., hundreds of Palestinians for a small handful of Israelis--usually their corpses), and hell, we even had Israel leave the Gaza Strip and dismantle all their settlements. Did that bring peace? No, considering Hamas decided to use the occasion to take over and instigate trouble.
I would also look at Israel's track record of making peace with its neighbours, in contrast with Hamas. Egypt and Jordan, both of whom were enemies that fought wars with Israel, are now at peace. What is Hamas' record? Refusing to acknowledge Israel's right to exist in the first place and using ceasefires to beef up its weaponry and lobbing missiles at Israel. Sounds like a stand-up group of people to negotiate with to me!
Considering the progress Israel has made in dealing with the Fatah-controlled government of the West Bank, I ultimately do believe that the obstacle to peace here is not Israel--again, look at their track record for negotiating lasting peace with its former enemies--but, instead, Hamas, Hezbollah and its Middle Eastern backers, whom not only fund Hamas and Hezbollah, but also refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist.
Why, logically speaking, should Israel feel compelled to bend over backwards for hostile entities like these? Nothing in this situation, either presently or historically, is ideal, but the usual response here has not worked and is not working today.