> It was my understanding that a deal with Saudi Arabia would have pushed Israel to a more peaceful solution (see
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/09/1141302 and others. note the date) like abandoning settlements and such. Hamas would loose it's foothold with some Palestinians in that case.
My impression was that the Palestinian issue was not at all at the heart of anyone's objectives, that some outside powers mentioned it in passing, and that Israel said nothing about it. I read that the Palestinians were very concerned about being abandoned by the world (they already see it that way, but thought the deal would be the final nail), and after the attacks I read that Hamas said that was an impetus for the attack.
> Hamas uses civilians as protective shields, hides under hospitals etc. to generate outrage. And you can see it working pretty well. Or shooting rockets from the rooftops of civilian's houses. I don't envy Israel: either shoot civilians or loose your own in rocket attacks.
That's Israel's argument and I expect it's at least somewhat true, but it's one of those things repeated often but that I haven't seen much factual support for. I don't expect much factual support: Who has access to Hamas planning, witnesses enough attacks, etc. to provide some objective verification? So that doesn't make it true or false, but I still have questions: In densely-populated Gaza, does Hamas have a non-civilian place from which to operate? And Hamas is an insurgency; they can't operate openly (have bases, open formations, etc.) - they would just be target practice for the Israeli bombs. I'd like to see a military expert talk about it.
Israeli partisans like to frame the issue with the last sentence quoted, but they have many other options of kind and degree, and they've had other options for many years. Israel has chosen in the recent past (~ last 20 years) indefinite low-level warfare, which is a self-defeating choice.
I'm mostly objecting to these points. I don't think they represent Israel's real position and needs well, but undermine it.
> Talking about history, I don't understand the whole fuzz about this anyway. Jews have been there for thousands of years.
I'm not sure what fuzz you're referring to here?
Length of tenure doesn't entitle anyone to real estate or the world would be really screwed up: every square meter has had many occupants, especially the Holy Land. It is a popular way aggressors justify themselves - 'it is our ancestral land!' Putin, for example, uses that for Ukraine.