Okay great, but this sounds like compulsion. Obviously, one of the sides is essentially immune to that, while the other one has not shown great response to compulsion.
Never mind whether and how this would work, though? Who is going to do the compulsion? Who will occupy Gaza for a sufficient amount of time for all these changes to happen, because that's what would be needed: an occupation. Israel doing it isn't going to end well, we know that. The Palestinians would probably not react great to most countries who are friendly with Israel doing it, and most countries in general would be unlikely to want to get involved in something like this to begin with. Really, the only real candidates would be other Arab countries.
You can remove ones like Morocco or Algeria or Mauritania from this equation since they're not really in that region and have few incentives to do this. They're far enough that whatever happens will not destabilize them. You can also remove Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Sudan since they have their own civil wars going on. You can also basically add Lebanon and Iraq to this category. They may not have civil wars happening, but you can see them breaking out in one if they got involved in occupying Gaza. A few of the smaller ones like Bahrain or Kuwait simply don't have the population to allow for an adventure like this. That leaves us with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and perhaps UAE who may well be in the too-small category.
Now, even if one of these countries(or perhaps multiple ones) wanted to step up, this isn't your classic peacekeeper/observer mission. The soldiers on the ground would be the sole force responsible for security in Gaza. Hamas is Hamas. They're not simply looking for a Palestine from the river to the sea, they're looking for Palestine from the river to the sea that is ruled by them, according to their views. We saw from the example of their civil war with Fatah that they have no qualms fighting against their own. They will treat the security presence of an Arab army the same way they'd treat the presence of the Israeli army. And even if by some miracle Hamas leadership agreed to this, it wouldn't matter. There will still be Islamic Jihad, there would likely be groups that would split off from Hamas, or you'd simply have new, more radical groups emerge on their own.
Even if these groups would not necessarily look for confrontation with an Arab force, they would certainly still be looking to attack Israel. If and when a terror attack happens, what then? Will this Arab force be able to deal with that with as much severity as Israel will demand? Will they hunt down the perpetrators and turn them over to Israel, knowing full well that this would require bloodshed? No Arab country is democratic, especially not the four candidates here, but they still have to worry about public opinion. The Palestinian cause is immensely popular in the Arab world, and the optics of an Arab force killing Palestinians would be awful. I think about the only country that could get away with it is Egypt, due to the decade-long insurgency in Sinai by Islamists close to Hamas leadership. Their populace may be able to swallow the idea that Hamas means ill to Egypt and need to be eliminated. Again though, Egypt is not a democracy and their treatment and the blockade of Gaza have not been much better than Israel's. It is entirely possible that Egyptian crackdown in Gaza would escalate into something very similar to what we're seeing now. Wanton destruction and callous disregard for the lives of Gazans.
And this is just security. What about the fact that so many of the problems in Gaza stem from the 80-year existence of massive refugee camps. 2/3 of Gaza's population are registered refugees, and something like a quarter of the population lives within refugee camps. Many of those who are registered refugees but don't live in camps live in what are essentially unofficial camps: shanty towns bordering refugee camps. Not only were Gaza's housing stock and infrastructure woefully inadequate before, but they have been almost destroyed in this current war. Even if they weren't, Gaza Strip has one of the highest population densities in the world. It doesn't matter what you do or how much you invest, it just can't support 2.5 million people. You can't just build housing for the million and a half with refugee status. This is a poor, arid area without a lot of economic potential.
The refugees can't be settled in Gaza, and they can't really be settled in the West Bank without causing mass upheaval there. They obviously can't "return" to Israel and that idea borders of fantasy. It would require a concerted effort by both Western and certain Arab countries to resettle and absorb these refugees. The refugees who, of course, would not want to leave. Now, Gaza could probably absorb a couple of hundred thousand, but that would still leave you with more than a million people you will need to force to leave. Of course their lives would be infinitely better if they were resettled in USA or Canada or Germany or UAE, but this is a hugely emotional issue. How do you do this? Which Palestinian (moral) authority will tell them to give up what they believe is their just claim on their homeland to be dispersed into exile? Who would have both the courage and the position to do it? What occupying force would compel these people to move?
And don't get me wrong. All the things I listed above ought to be done. You could even say they must be done for a comprehensive settlement, but who's going to undertake such a thankless job?
