[flagged]
There's really barely any evidence Hamas would agree to a 2 state solution. The overwhelming evidence is it won't agree to it. Same for one state solution - Hamas would of course agree to cancel the state of Israel (thus creating something you could call a one state, slowly or quickly driving the Jews away) but definitely not to any kind of shared power democracy.
To truly appease Hamas Israel needs to commit national suicide. That's quite a big ask for a people as persecuted as the Jews.
What do you think drives the Palestinian movement and what are its main goals? If it was simply to get their own state surely they could have achieved it by now (as far back as in 1947). So there seems to be much more going on than simply attaining statehood - there is a very strong irredentist force among Palestinians that wants to go back to the way things were 80 or a 100 years ago. Which means returning to their original homes (I don't see how you could do that without throwing out the Jewish 'colonists').
To me that does seem to be motivated at least partly by revenge. As for antisemitism among Palestinians, it's there and widely documented (you could come up with good reasons why it's there, but denying it's there is wrong).
The PLO has accepted a two-state solution since 1981, for nearly 44 years. This is what Avner Yaniv called the "peace offensive", and is especially dangerous because it weakens Israeli attempts to deny a Palestinian state. The solution to this is simple: provocation to encourage extremist elements. Of course in 1982 Israel went a bit further and used provocation to set a precedent to invade Lebanon in an attempt to destroy the PLO entirely.
>Which means returning to their original homes (I don't see how you could do that without throwing out the Jewish 'colonists').
This is not what the right to return is. This is what Amnesty has to say about return:
>Where possible, Palestinians should be able to return to their original home or lands. If this is not possible -- because they no longer exist, have been converted to other uses, or because of a valid competing claim -- they should be allowed to return to the vicinity of their original home.
"Valid competing claim" includes the modern-day owner of the home.
So Amnesty decides for the Palestinians what the right of return means? Nice. Yeah, sounds super realistic that's what Hamas means when they talk about the right of return.
Israel has indisputably been an occupying force in Palestine continuously since 1967, at the latest.
> They left Gaza in 2005.
They did not stop exerting control of Gaza at any point, continuing to regularly murder unarmed civilians within Gaza, without provocation, control its waters, and otherwise exercise dominion even after their tactical redeployment. Not that even if they had withdrawn from that part of Palestine it would change that they were occupying Palestine.
The international community regarded Gaza as always under occupation. You can have your own (unqualified) opinions about this; that judgement is a fact.
That's the narrative that the State of Israel promotes. But as with many things it says, it is wildly disconnected from reality.
Israel never fully "left" Gaza. It pulled its settlements and internal troop deployments, but still maintained control of the Strip's borders, martime access and air space. And continued to bomb and invade sporadically ("mowing the lawn"), according its whimsy and pleasure.
That's why it still considered to be under Israeli occupation according to UN statutes.
Palestinians decided to spend their time preparing for terrorist attacks against Israel.
Some did, the vast majority did not but were retaliated against anyway.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-poll-f...
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform...
Does this authorise Hamas to go there and raze the entire country to the ground? Please let me know.
Pretty much yes according to too many liberal professors in ivy league universities. I think human lives on both sides are quite cheap to them.
Besides this, even if Hamas and Likud are identical in the intentions, only one side is illegally occupying and annexing the other's territory, and almost all deaths and destruction are on the other side. The situation on the ground matters- people who are oppressed have a right to defend themselves, and this comes before any stated intention.
In most juridical systems, it's the intent that matters.