I was saying from the start that these factors all play a role and are both sufficient explanations. That they both influence each other. It is you - with the monocausal answers to RJGooner and oBlade - that tried to give Israel a sole responsibility. That is why I asked the question if you believe that the violence towards Israel would stop entirely, would Israel fundamentally change its policy once more. Not to show any reader that you didn’t address it (most people don’t follow our exchanges anyway), but to highlight this main issue:

1. Monocausal explanation: Israeli policy is the sole underlying cause of Hamas' violence. Hamas' ideology, popularity and actions are products of the Israeli-Palestinian political cycle.
2. Independent persistence: Hamas would continue to be violent towards Israel even if Israeli policy changed substantially.
If you genuinely maintain the first position, the second one is impossible in a monocausal explanation.

And I can say it outright - no need for dances: Yes, Islamic religious extremism and fundamentalism is one of the issues driving this conflict. But as I said before and as you are happy to leave out as it doesn't fit your narrative of painting me as an Islamophobe (which still is utterly ridiculous): both faiths hinder this from progressing to a solution - see Jerusalem.

I can’t really see how “ these are just two reactionary factions pushing each other in a cycle”, when you also agree that “Hamas would continue to be violent toward Israel” “ if Israeli policy changed substantially”.
Then these two pushing each other in cycles isn’t the only explanation and thus the explanation becomes… reductive.

And yeah, you can write a quippy one-liner in regards to this question but the core issue about these mutually exclusive statements has not been resolved.
I never said anything in this recent exchange about justification, morality or that actions shouldn’t be criticized. I criticized many of Israel’s actions (individual as well as strategic decisions in regards to morality). That is not the issue here. The issue is that you claimed that Israeli policy alone is the reason for violence.
My point is that this view is reductive in the face of other factors I mentioned, none of which explain the violence all by themselves, but yes… form a web that contributes to the violence.
I made my points.
- I can hardly think of any monocausal large scale sociological or psychological phenomena.
- Religious fundamentalism, poverty, strategic objectives, historical grievances, ideology, political institutions and geopolitical alliances. All these play a role. I think it is absurd to argue otherwise and to blame this only on a repeating cycle of violence where the policies of one side are able to resolve everything, which you argued before.

And just to be clear: I am not talking about the existence of individual bigots. I am - among other things - talking about an organised political and military movement whose ideological foundations, strategic objectives and willingness to employ violence are relevant to understanding the conflict since its founding. Now looping back to the beginning of your reply:
No, the first paragraph showing what Hamas and Hezbollah truly are, is not irrelevant or "unnecessary stuff" but an important puzzle piece in this web.
And the reason why people did not travel to Lebanon and rather to Syria - btw - also has multiple explanations. And the most sensible ones are that recruitment was different and ISIS was proposing a global caliphate.