Yes and where did that sovereignty come from?
There had never been a sovereign Palestine. The land in question was held by various empires, Roman, Ottoman, and British. Following the end of World War II, the issue of how to bring the region to sovereignty arose as the British Mandate approached its end.
It was an arbitrary carving out of the land by imperial power. The Palestinians have a legitimate historical grievance that has been ongoing for generations, and to this day their land becomes smaller and smaller in accordance with the expansion of another culture.
The UN was charged with finding a formula to bring about sovereignty. The core needs of the area's two peoples--Jews and Arabs, each of whom had historic legitimacy in the region--had to be accommodated. As no single state formula could achieve that requirement given the animosities between the area's two peoples and as perpetuation of the British Mandate was not feasible, a partition plan offered the most effective approach. Although the partition plan fell short of meeting the two peoples' aspirations, it did satisfy their needs in which each could have a sovereign state of its own.
Without doubt, there were no perfect solutions. The partition plan was the best that could have been achieved.
Until that grievance is acknowledged and attempts at reconciliation are made, there are going to be continued attacks, even after Palestine is fully absorbed. Hamas is seen as a terrorist organization by the West because it is contrary to our support of Israel. Within the Middle East views differ.
All reasonable people understand that the partition plan was not perfect. It was the best that could have been done to accommodate the core needs of the two peoples in the face of irreconcilable differences between the two.
Reconciliation will occur when the parties are willing to compromise so as to coexist. Israel has met that standard e.g., with Prime Minister Barak's acceptance of President Clinton's bridging proposal. Prime Minister Sharon met that standard in setting forth a bold but ultimately unsuccessful unilateral disenagement from the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians have shown little flexibility on matters such as refugees (and their descendants) and Jerusalem.
Hamas is a terrorist entity, not because it takes positions contrary to the West's support of Israel but because it deliberately attacks civilians in pursuit of gain.
I essentially call into question who we choose to label as "terrorists". I think Israel and Palestine have both committed acts of terrorism in order to support their individual agendas, and it all stems from historical grievances.
The conflict stems from historic grievances. However, self-defense, even when unintended harm to civilians is caused, is not the same thing as terrorism. Israel has not engaged in terrorism, as it has not deliberately attacked civilians in pursuit of its policy objectives. Hamas, on the other hand, has deliberately attacked civilians in pursuit of its goals.
The fact that the West has decided to prop up one of those parties makes little difference in my mind. Who we call "terrorists" changes year to year based our own political whims.
Terrorists are those who deliberately attack civilians in a bid to further their policy objectives. Thus, the determination of whom is a terrorist is not a "political whim."