I agree this is the likely the best solution - and one that Hamas were opposed to in their 1988 charter and somewhat neatly sidestepped in their more recent charter. The two state solution was a very viable solution and that was the plan in the 1990s and very much the solution proposed by the international community in the Oslo Accords. This looked promosing until the Second intifada and the chaos that brought. This fired up the Israeli right and the Palestinian hardliners.

In 2005, as part of the roadmap towards peace the Israeli's withdrew from Gaza. The result was a civil war between Fatah and Hamas and the subsequent emergence of a more hardline government. This civil war killed a lot of palestinians as well - Hamas veiwing the entire Oslo accord business as a stab in the back by treacherous politiciians.

In order to broker a peace deal similar to the one done in South Africa, you need all the key players to be working in the same direction. Even with the Mahlabatini declaration, it still took twenty years of secret talks to bring an end to apartheid. In the Israel / Palestine debate, you haven't even got that good-faith agreement in place. There are plenty of Israeli's and plenty of Palestinians who would love to see a two state solution on the 1967 borders as you've suggested - but that isn't being played out on the ground. There are hardline activists on both sides and until those hardline political positions are removed, the two state solution cannot be brought to bear.

So my next question is this. Do you think the joining in of underinformed left-ists waving flags on behalf of Palestine is helping or hindering? Is it pushing for peace or is it funnelling money and press attention towards Hamas and further engendering the success of an organisation that has been opposed to the two state solution and the existence of Israel until 2017.

I'm not suggesting that you're under informed on this, because you've done your reading - but there are plenty of people who are. These people do not look at the wider historical or political context in which any of this has occurred and they don't play out the scenarios fully. It's a simple narrative of goodies and baddies writ large upon the world stage.

Let us say Israel returns to the 1967 borders and unilaterally withdraws all forces, finances and settlements. What do you think will happen next? My bet would be civil war - followed by a populist right wing uprising, the persecution of liberal palestinians and endlses border skirmishes. I suspect that Hamas would win the population over and attempt to destroy Israel. Though, given the current military imbalance it is not likely to last six days.

In short - there is injustice and that should be challenged, but the answer you have provided is likely to create more hardship rather than less for Palestinian people, and the solution you have provided (the two state solution) is what was already proposed, worked toward and not accepted by either side at the current juncture. Only by moving the populations back towards a centre position, removing the hardliners on either side of the debate and pushing towards moderation will the two state solution work. Unilateral support along a simplistic narrative will do little more than fire up the extremists in both camps. That's why I don't like bumper sticker activists.