We can argue forever about the pros and cons of the establishment of Israel (I'm not fan of the history myself), but it's done. The Arabs lost that war, and there's no erasing the past without another war. Some of the settlements are as permanent and intrinsic to Israel's economy and security now as the undisputed territory itself, and reparations in the form of a simplistic land swap are hopelessly unrealistic. If the parties can't sit down and agree that this is the reality, the conflict is insoluble. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, the reality is the Palestinians can choose to lose a little more, or a lot. The violations of the past will never be made right, the bloodbath on both sides is now so deep there is an endless list of grievances. Somebody has to give up, and that somebody is the Palestinians. By hitching their wagon to Hamas, they have put themselves on a path to a war in which they will most certainly suffer a crushing defeat without the rest of the Arab world rising to their defense. That won't happen.
The Palestinians, for better or (far more likely) for worse, made Hamas an official part of their government. That there are many factions within Hamas is now completely irrelevant. They either police their own, or live with the fact that their newly-earned legitimacy comes with a price, namely that acts of aggression against Israel are no longer "terrorist attacks". They're acts of war, as sure as if someone from Fatah did the same. Given our own behavior over the past few years, the US is about the last nation on Earth with any cause to complain about Israeli heavy-handedness.
Something seldom mentioned but I've always been curious about is why only Israel has to give up territory for a Palestinian state. Historically speaking, when the Palestinians rejected the UN partition, at that point there WAS really no Palestine (not that there ever was a soveriegn Palestine before in any case, but thats another matter). Part of the reason they DID reject it was at the urging of several of the neighboring states (who wanted to resolve things via war). Why can't Jordan and Egypt (and perhaps Syria) also give up land to make a contiguous Palestine possible? After all, its not like any of those countries are innocent bystanders in this whole mess, or that their own borders are acrosanct or something (with the exception of Egypt I think the rest were created by the Euro's out of the wreckage of the old Ottoman Empire...IIRC). I'm obviously glossing over quite a bit here, but why is this never even considered as a resolution?
After all, Jordan IS Palestine. Its the major part of the British Mandate in fact. As for Egypt, they were instrumental and at the core of the original quagmire, they certainly played their part. I think Jordan is really at the heart of who should give up some land...if we are all fired set to make a viable Palestinian homeland and all. But Egypt isn't exactly some third party with nothing to do with this mess. Jordan and Egypt (and nearly all of the other Arab nations in the region) want nothing to do with Palestine or the Palestinians. That excuse however doesn't seem to hold for the Israeli's though, so I don't see why it should for them either. They certainly contributed as much or more than Israel did to the current situation, and they should be part of the solution, even if that means they have to make some sacrifices as well.
Also, attacking Israel has thus far accomplished...what exactly? Maybe going into complete peace mode would have the effect of creating mounting world wide pressure on Israel to get out of that territory once and for all...with no security excuses?, the same ole same ole doesn't seem to be having much effect except continueing the cycle of violence. I'm not saying it would be popular with many Israeli citizens, but without the constant attacks I think Israel would be in a much weaker position wrt the West Bank. Democracies seem to respond to that kind of pressure...eventually. Its much more difficult to keep a democratic population to a hard line when threats are removed, and much easier for said population to TAKE a hard line when the threats are very real and quite immediate. Take away the constant suicide bombings, shellings, assassinations and other threats from the Palestinians toward Israel and its a whole new ball game.
Time to take a Ghandi type look at things
In the eyes of the Palestinians, when Israel acts unilaterally, it's in the wrong. Period. Never mind the reason. Sometimes Israel is acting wrongly. Sometimes it isn't. From the Palestinian perspective, at least the Hamas perspective, nothing Israel does on its own behalf can be justified, because Israel has no right to exist. The Palestinian govt. is now in large part controlled by a party that has no interest in accepting a permanent two state solution. They want an "eliminate Israel" solution, that's always been the goal, and it's going to get them destroyed.
For the life of me, I don't no why the US STILL pumps Billions! of dollars yearly into Eygpt, Isreal & Jordan in exchange for the arab/isreali peace accords...I say, cut em ALL off
We are currently getting ZERO returns on that money, no peace in sight. But I digress, that is what you get investing in culture wars set in motion for the fairy tale cause of the coming rapture. Such is the state of the world.