But this is patently untrue. Conversely, it's hopelessly oversimplifying the issue, and to claim otherwise is conveniently to ignore over 7 decades of history that have passed between the mandate and now. It would be to forget how Hamas really came about - in opposition to Yasser Arafat, the PLO and Fatah who were too secular and too compromising for their liking. When ANO split off, becoming notorious as one of the most vicious, bloodthirsty terrorist organizations on the face of the planet, it didn't take long to clarify that Abu Nidal didn't give a fuck about Palestine, any more than he gave a fuck about religion, or even ideology for that matter. That's why he killed many of Arafat's top men, turned on his own side, and slaughtered about 600 of his own soldiers.
This isn't to revere Arafat as some kind of saint either - he perpetrated some indefensible acts himself - but in the end proved willing to compromise. He and Israeli PM Rabin shaking hands at the moment of the Oslo Accords promised to be a world-changing moment: the beginnings of a two state solution amid the acknowledgement that both nations had a right to exist, and both men received the Nobel peace prize for their efforts. Peace never came. Arafat would end up holed up in a compound in Gaza, and Rabin was assassinated, not by Hamas, but by the far right on his own side. This is why the silly 'my side, your side' tribalism looks so crude and silly in such a context. It isn't so straightforward as 'four legs good, two legs bad'. It isn't Hamas slaughtering Israelis, and Israel doing likewise to the Palestinians. The issue is the extremists on both sides - including Netanyahu - who want to kill not only the other side but also anyone on their own side who opposes them. This poses real problems when the answer to this conflict needs to come from the moderates on both sides. It's been tried. Look at where that ended up.
There are some other gems on this thread: such as (Palestinians who accepted the state of Israel and live well and with more rights within Israel than they would anywhere else in ME). You've got to be kidding. Have you been to Jerusalem, seen how Palestinians live there, seen how they're crammed into the most impoverished regions, denied basic rights and not even allowed to call themselves Palestinians, but 'Israeli Arabs?' Imagine how offensive that would be if applied to any ethnic group in the UK?
Hamas are terrorists. Their actions are indefensible. The Netanyahu government are war criminals. Their actions are also indefenensible. It's embarrassing how little people are aware of the huge complexities underpinning this conflict before they cheerfully nail their colours to one particular mast, and in doing so claim all the faults are on one side.
And the greatest complexity of all is that for 6000 years, Mediterranean and Semitic tribes have crossed paths, fought and intermarried in the region surrounding Jerusalem. The abiding continuinties of that region are cultural conflict, in terms of the later Abrahamic faiths that sprung up there, religious conflict, and for most of that time and in most of those places, the subjugation of women. For this to change, IMO there'd have to be little short of a seismic shift in power relations on this planet, starting with the superpowers. Because what precipitated the latest Hamas attack? Of course. Saudi were on the brink of recognising the Israeli state.
A two-state solution is so far from the desired outcome for so many in and beyond that region as to make it all-but an impossibility. No words can express how much I want to be wrong.