That is not correct.

From the Mike Whitney opinion piece: On Friday, the Washington Post published an op-ed by Hamas Foreign Minister, Mahmoud al-Zahar which clearly articulates the position of Hamas. It is well worth reading in its entirety.

If one then goes to the Zahar op-ed (about which there is a thread in this subforum), one finds that Zahar wrote, "Our movement fights on because we cannot allow the foundational crime at the core of the Jewish state...to slip out of world consciousness, forgotten or negotiated away." The "foundational crime" is a reference to Israel's re-establishment. In that op-ed, Zahar reaffirmed Hamas' rejection of Israel's right to exist (the "foundational crime" to which he referred and said could not be "negotiated away").

So, it is not a matter of "Zionists" who oppose "real peaceful" solutions, it is Hamas that continues to reject Israel's right to exist. Terms of peace that require Israel's elimination--or that of any sovereign state for that matter--are unreasonable. Unfortunately, while Mr. Whitney recommended that Mr. Zahar's op-ed be read "in its entirety," he ignored the crucial language in that piece that reaffirmed Hamas' opposition to Israel's continued existence.