There are many groups that one might call Islamic terrorists, but if you're going to lump those with quite concrete goals and operating only in their own country, such as Hamas, together with the likes of al-Qaeda, it's going to become a mess.

I can't see how it's somehow "worse than terrorism" to continue one's terrorist activities when not satisfied by the offers made by the other side. It's just ordinary terrorism as far as I can see. And while most outsiders will agree that the Palestinians were fools for not closing the deal at Camp David - that was Arafat who was to blame there, though, not Hamas - there is, once again, no objective optimal solution that they morally had to accept. There is no simple straightforward solution in that conflict, it's always a matter of how well both sides can negotiate, and how much they have to grant if they want genuine peace. The Palestinians thought they could get more than they were offered at Camp David. I'd like to think people in Fatah know better now, but those in Hamas really don't seem to. Foolish, yes, but I'm not sure how it somehow makes them "worse than terrorists". It's not as if they said no because they "were so in love with killing".

Right, but that seems a somewhat abstract point with little practical effect - you can have groups of people deciding revolution is morally just, and acting accordingly, while the large majority of people disagrees. I mean, every revolution or rebellion is carried out by people who think they are doing the morally just thing.