Please understand the distinction between the destruction of the state of Israel and the destruction of the people of Israel. The example you were just given was the destruction of the state of South Africa.

a two state solution is fair and striving for peace and understanding between the two parties is desirable.

That sounds nice, but Israel wants no such thing and never has, despite its past claims to the contrary.

I've seen many people in this post say the best solution is a two state system.

That is not a solution, it is bantustans.

You're saying that's not what you would prefer, and that Israel should be wiped out?

The "state" of Israel should be destroyed thoroughly. The "state" of Israel is premised on ethnosuoremacist genocidal apartheid and colonization. Remove those things and the "state" of Israel will fundamentally no longer exist, both because injustice will have been addressed and also because a very large number of Israeli settlers will simply leave, as they only care about living in an ethnostate that serves them. Something similar happened with Boers.

I don't have a particular opinion on your view because my knowledge of what Israel and Hamas has done is admittedly limited, but I would lean towards the idea that you're justifying Israel's reaction and statements that the reason they are taking the action they are is because of, well, ideas like yours.

Israel's political leadership have always understood their project as ethnosupremacist, of requiring stealing land from the natives, as requiring oppression of the larger population of Palestinians who will not tolerate these conditions. They correctly understand that this project will end if those conditions are addressed, if justice is done. That is not a reason to accept their justification, as no ethnkstate deserves to exist or "defend itself" against those it oppresses.

I think, from what I've learned over the past week of exploring this situation, that a two state solution is fair and striving for peace and understanding between the two parties is desirable. I seem to have an innately negative reaction to what you suggest here.

A two-state solution is bantustans and not even taken seriously by the "Israelis" or their American sponsors. It is just a nice-sounding "compromise" they hold in front of liberals like a carrot so that they will accept their continued slow (or now fast) genocide and displacement of Palestinians. "Israel" prefers its slow and steady expulsion of Palestinians into smaller and smaller concentration camps, like districts from South Africa. Those could never be considered a "state" under any circumstances and "Israel" would never accept them as such, even in such a diajointed condition.

Justice requires an end to the ethnostate itself.

I think a Two-State Solution would be a good idea (and I have opinions on exactly where the border should go), but it will have to be imposed on Israel by the international community.

Israel has never been sincere about a Two-State solution, and their "offers" to Palestine have been inadequate and unworkable, and the Palestinians have been right to reject them because there's no point in accepting a deal that won't lead to peace. Only a fair and workable deal can lead to peace.

Israel has demonstrated that they are an illegitimate state, because legitimate states do not bomb the stateless people living within their borders. At this point we should be treating Israel like Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany. The Israeli military should be placed under foreign control, and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza returned to the Palestinians.

So far, the only thing stopping this from happening has been the United States' support for Israel.

Israel needs to realize that the United States is rapidly declining in power, and if Israel doesn't voluntarily cede the Palestinian territories, Israel might not exist at all in the near future.