they accepted a two-state solution previously, the isreali PM that was negotiating with them at the time was assassinated.

Before 1948, Palestinian Leadership repeatedly advocated for a Unitary Binational State for decades: Palestinian Arab Congress advocating for Unified State 1928, Arab Higher Committee advocating for Unified State 1937, Arab League advocating for Unified State 1948

After the founding of Israel, the Two-State Solutions were utilized to further annex the Palestinian Occupied Territories and enact military control over Palestinians while denying them human and civil rights. This is apartheid. Despite this, both Fatah and Hamas have accepted a Two-State Solution on the 1967 borders, with the two most important factors being the Right of Return of Palestinian refugees and an end to the permanent occupation.

Oslo Accord Sources: MEE, NYT, Haaretz, AJ

History of peace process - The Intercept

The settlements represent land-grabbing, and land-grabbing and peace-making don’t go together, it is one or the other. By its actions, if not always in its rhetoric, Israel has opted for land-grabbing and as we speak Israel is expanding settlements. So, Israel has been systematically destroying the basis for a viable Palestinian state and this is the declared objective of the Likud and Netanyahu who used to pretend to accept a two-state solution. In the lead up to the last election, he said there will be no Palestinian state on his watch. The expansion of settlements and the wall mean that there cannot be a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. The most that the Palestinians can hope for is Bantustans, a series of enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements and Israeli military bases.

• Avi Shlaim

How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution

‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe

One State Solution, Foreign Affairs

They said they would accept 1967 borders in their 2017 charter, so it's been done before. It was also less antisemitic than their previous charter. I think they're trying to be less extreme and more flexible to get more recruitment maybe, but that's just my guess.

4 or 5 other times it was offered and every time it was shot down by the PA because either it wasn't from the river to the sea or all jews have to leave.

It was never about sharing, it was about keeping it all to themselves.

They've publicly held this position for nearly 20 years now. When they publicly adopted it and got elected as the new Palestinian Authority because of it, Israel immediately declared war and prevented them taking power.

Well, they did fuck around and find out. Now they are facing an existential threat of their own and suddenly reasonable?

Hamas won an election in 2007, which no other country accepted the results of. Israel responded with a blockade. Not saying they're the good guys but it's not like it's a level playing field.

Hamas began twenty years into the occupation during the first Intifada, with the goal of ending the occupation. Collective punishment has been a deliberate Israeli tactic for decades with the Dahiya doctrine. Violence such as suicide bombings and rockets escalated in response to Israeli enforcement of the occupation and apartheid.

Hamas 1988 Charter and Revised 2017 Charter

The 1988 Charter, which is certainly unreasonable in its fundamentalism with Sharia Law and is antisemitic, does not call for the extermination of all Jewish People. Hamas wants an end to Israel as an Apartheid State, not an extermination of all Israelis. Under Ahmed Yassin in the 1990's, truces were offered in exchange for Israeli to withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank to the 1967 borders. The 2017 Revised charter explicitly accepts a Two-State Solution of the 1967 Borders. Check Article 7 and 13 of the 1988 Charter to see yourself, compare it to Article 20 and 24-26 in the revised charter.

The slogan From the River to the Sea is about Palestinian liberation that started in the 60s by the PLO for a democratic secular state, not Genocide. The Syrian leader Hafez al-Assad in 1966 maybe, but he's not Palestinian.

History of Hamas supported by Netanyahu since 2012

No I don't support Hamas as a ruling party, I want Palestinians to be able to have free fair elections.

I think that person you're replying to's point is they won't be able to recruit at the same right without the huge group of angry, oppressed people that Israel keeps producing. They'll wither away out off non-relevance.

Holy misinformation batman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood

Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood in the city of Ismailia in March 1928 along with six workers of the Suez Canal Company, as a Pan-Islamic, religious, political, and social movement.

They were opposed to colonialism, both in the form of British occupation and the threat of Zionism - the direct result of which we're seeing today.

They did side with the axis powers in WW2, but we've seen that elsewhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army - the logic being that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Also,

al-Banna and other members of the Brotherhood voiced admiration for aspects of Nazi ideology, including its militarism and its centralization revolving around a charismatic leader but opposed others like its racial policies and ethnic nationalism.

At this point we can't say the same about Israel given it is entirely founded on ethnic nationalism.