Although we all support an independent, viable and sovereign Palestinian state in theory, I find Clinton’s remarks terribly naieve.
Mr. Van der Galien's support is so abstract that he thinks even those who agree with his position are naive. Now that's what I call theoretical!
The point Mr. Van der Galien tries to make is that Hamas and Fatah are mortal enemies who, whenever they are put together, are at each others throats. That, indeed, is an obstacle to establishing a viable Palestinian state, though I'm not sure that makes the goal of it "naive" so much as it identifies a barrier that America will have to keep in mind and work through in our diplomatic engagement.
But also, I'm at least a little confused as to why the Hamas/Fatah conflict really undermines the case for establishing a Palestinian state. That is to say, I'm not sure what "bad things" that flow from the Hamas/Fatah conflict become worse because their battle is in the context of a sovereign state rather than as an occupied pseudo-government. Either way, Palestinians will suffer from the conflict, either way, Israel risks being bloodied by the spill-over of the clashes, and either way, there is some incentive to gain popularity by ratcheting up violent attacks against the Israeli state (though I imagine the last of these, at least, would be reduced in a statehood context). One might also hope that the domestic pressure to actually run a new country might put enough leverage on the two to put aside their differences at least for the short term and try governing for awhile.
But that's neither here nor there. The fact that getting a viable Palestinian state off the ground might be hard isn't a good reason to remove that end-state as an objective. A "theoretical" support for a Palestinian state that is so thin that it mocks anyone else who registers similar support is the essence of a facade. If you're not willing to work at creating a Palestinian state, you're not in favor of one -- "theoretically" or otherwise.