Israel is a democracy made up of various parties with a whole spectrum of opinions. Some are for a two state solution (center-left), some for a one state solution in the form of "greater israel" (hard right, fringe elements if you ask me), and others that honestly just don't give it much thought. Hamas, on the other hand, is quite ideological about its stance with regards to the destruction of Israel.

> Hamas, on the other hand, is quite ideological about its stance with regards to the destruction of Israel.

> Israel is a democracy made up of various parties with a whole spectrum of opinions.

That may be so but the Israeli state as a whole has been quite consistent over the last few decades in its systematic destruction of any political or geographical possible basis of a Palestinian state, be it in the West Bank or Gaza.

Not true. There have been serious peace attempts and real changes in every decade since 1967.

True.

However as far as I can tell the settlements in the West Bank have grown through every government since the occupation - something which fundamentally undermines any moves towards a resolution.

Any attempt at peace has poor prospects if a significant part of civil society and army is dead set on colonisation.

Any yes, I'm aware of the complexities of Israeli politics and society.

Before Netanyahu there were at least four prime ministers - Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin - who've made honest attempts at peace. Not to mention Ariel Sharon who has, despite being a hard right-winger, lead the disengagement from Gaza (at a tremendous political cost). You seem to be placing the responsibility for these failures entirely on one side.

> Ariel Sharon who has, despite being a hard right-winger, lead the disengagement from Gaza

This was not an attempt to further the peace process. It was motivated by the expense and difficulty of a military occupation of a densely populated urban area.

> You seem to be placing the responsibility for these failures entirely on one side.

Please, no need for that. I'm aware of Hamas' efforts to counter any moves towards peace. And of the effects of the suicide bombing campaign.

Similarly any talk of peace from the Israeli government is meaningless while settlement of the West Bank continues.

> Similarly any talk of peace from the Israeli government is meaningless while settlement of the West Bank continues.

The same can be said of the terror attacks. I strongly agree that the settlements are an obstacle to peace and apologize if my comment came off as aggressive. But you have to realize that this is a deadlock. No Israeli leader can stop the settlements as long as there are terror attacks, and no Palestinian leader can stop the terror attacks as long as there are settlements. That is our tragedy I suppose.

The Hamas charter literally says that Israel will exist:

>It advocated for a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders, describing this as a "formula of national consensus".

1967 borders means two state.

What you're apparently referring to is slight change in Hamas charter in 1997.

In fact, what they actually said was "Hamas advocates the liberation of all of Palestine but is ready to support the state on 1967 borders without recognising Israel or ceding any rights"

i.e. they would support the creation a Palestinian state within 1967 borders in the interim but not give up their fight for the rest of Israel.

This "softening" (as one left-wing newspaper called it apparently unironically) was in contrast with their previous stance which would reject a Palestinian state offer if it was based 1967 borders.

They have never gone back on their stated aim to reconquer all of Israel and never indicated they will tolerate Israel existing.

I don't think Hamas is following that in practice, based on their treatment of Israelis, as hostages and as a people.

Sure, those who had the good fortune to not be murdered and raped with their family and friends were treated with humanity during a 3 minute PR parade. I'm sorry, but this is just gaslighting.

Should they act completely peacefully while Israel maintains settlements and themselves don't honor the agreed upon 1967 borders? Why is it wrong for one side to behave violently but not the other?

I don't condone those Israeli policies, but I don't think terrorist attacks are a productive way to incite peaceful reform. There's no fair solution when one side is much more powerful and cruel with that power, but responding with violence sure doesn't convince people to shake hands.

It's wrong for both sides to behave violently

The 1967 borders, as strongly as they feature in all discussions, were never "agreed upon".

Even the famous UN security council resolution 242 deliberately does not define those borders.

Every peace discussion has used them as a basis for a future settlement, but until that happens it's premature to call them agreed anything.

The full quote

'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.'

You are aware in Islam there’s a concept of God dealing with the oppressors, right?