The only issues i see are the radicals on both ends. Hamas (or at least some parts of Hamas) won't stop if the PA gets a state (and if anyone gets a state, it'll be the PA), and given that the PA has no control over Hamas, they can't credibly commit to peace, since they have no control over the violent arm. At the same time there are these Israeli settlers in the West Bank who have proven time and again that they'll do whatever they damn well please, damn Israel, damn the PA, damn human rights or any kinds of economic sanctions.
Hamas means that Israel can't trust a Palestinian state, especially since the ones they're negotiating with have zero control over what Hamas does, and until the settlers are gone the West Bank will remain utterly crippled geographically, but the settlers have shown that they can effectively resist calls for them to stand down, and Israel lacks the power to control them, but for different reasons (mostly that it would be bad politics if they did what they should do, which is buy up the settlers' land at fair market price, re-sell it to the PA who can then dole it out as they will, and force the settlers to get the hell out)
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
