That's a nice fairy tale but it has precious little to do with the established diplomatic record that goes back to the 1970's. In 1971, Sadat offered a full peace treaty to Israel (with nothing as a concession to the Palestinians). Israel refused it, and the US backed them in that refusal. That refusal led directly to the 1973 war. They reluctantly accepted Sadat's offer at Camp David, but by then, the Palestinian question had reached the international agenda and they were also included in it.
In January 1976, the US (obviously with Israel's blessing) vetoed a Security Council resolution, which was advanced by the non-aligned countries, the Arab states, and endorsed by the PLO, that called for a two-state settlement along the pre-June 4 1967 borders. They would do so again in 1980. The US has also annually vetoed a GA resolution, which is called the "Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question," every year since it started in 1988 after Arafat had issued the Algiers Declaration. Every year, the vote is something along the lines of 165 or so in favor and 5-7 against, the "no's" being Australia, the United States, Israel, Nauru, Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. Notice, the whole of the Arab League and the whole of the OIC votes in favor of that resolution, as well as in their own conferences. In other words, the Arab League countries convene 3 times in 3 different arenas to affirm their support for the two-state settlement as dictated by UN Resolution 242, 194, and most recently the ICJ's 2004 Advisory Opinion. Israel and the US have, to this day, refused to endorse such a settlement.
As to the idea of Israel's goal not being the destruction of the Palestinians, that's a bad joke. Of course it is. I mean since you're here tacitly referring to that stupid ass 1988 Hamas Charter (which has since been rebuked by its present leadership's willingness to join the international consensus more than a decade ago), I guess it's only fair that I directly refer to the charters of Likud and their predecessors (Herut), which explicitly forbid the idea of the creation of an independent Palestinian state and, in fact, calls for their destruction. And they not only put that forth in foundational rhetoric, they implement it in real policy. Nobody who's sympathetic with the Palestinians even bothers to point that out. Nobody serious says "oh they shouldn't negotiate with Bibi because his party has this charter that explicitly forbids a Palestinian state." That would be extremely stupid, and yet as extremely stupid as it would be, it would read like the Declaration of fucking Independence when juxtaposed with these complaints, whines and bitches about the Hamas charter. "This side of the Jordan, that side also." That was a Herut slogan...yet you'll never see a single Hamas leader make any sort of hay about it. Why? He wouldn't have to. The actions of the present are far more important than founding documents. To argue otherwise is to insist on rhetoric over reality. That is the folly of the superficial-minded.
That's irrelevant. Neither Mexico nor Texas were created vis a vis a partition resolution by an international governing body in the way that Israel was. You're comparing apples to oranges, and as someone else pointed out, it's not even a flattering comparison anyways.
Again, apples and oranges. Yes, Texas and the US together stole about 1/3rd of Mexico, but it is not maintaining that territory via military occupation. Israel is militarily occupying the West Bank, the Gaza, and East Jerusalem. They've been in flat contradiction of international law in doing so for the last 54 years and they're the ones that have incurred the obligation to cease such activities.
They have no obligation to leave the West Bank and Gaza. That would be the IDF. That's what you don't get.