This is the reality of Hamas

And lots of people support the people of Palestinian who support hamas in getting rid of Israel. Interesting isn't it. So Israel knows this. Might explain some things, they don't want to be wiped out.

You're talking about Jewish people who didnt support Israel's position on Gaza?

Perhaps not, but the majority of the population do. And the majority of the population support Israel's response to Hamas. And the majority of Gazans support the actions taken by Hamas and the narrative of Hamas

So while you can get rid of Hamas (one day), the vast majority of those under Hamas at the moment still are of the same position of Hamas. ie, they want the end of Israel, like most of the ME

Many of the people killed on Oct 7 did not support the government narrative.

Isnt the truth of it that, just like in Israel, the people of Palestine largely support the Hamas narrative (as in Israelies support the governments narrative even though Netenyahu is not popular himself)

Are Hamas not evil in your eyes? Your post is one of cynicism and comes across that you don't think Hamas are actually 'evil'. I realise many support their 'resistance' as they term it. I've seen lots of that on the threads.

You sound like you support Hamas, being so sarcastic about how 'evil' you think they are.

You know, Hamas is so evil. October 7th was all part of Sinwar's plan to make Israel look bad. They wanted to get Israel so mad that they would do a genocide. It was a simple plan really: 1-Oct 7th 2- Genocide 3-world gets mad.
This is what Hamas is making the Israelis do. They don't want to do this. Hamas made them kill their women. Hamas made them kill their children. Hamas made them starve them, or go into a pile of rubble and put on a girls nightie. They made them take TikToks.

This kind of argument is the most repugnant form of victim blaming. Just so you can change the accountability and now you don't have to feel bad about supporting Israel and everything it does.

Yes.

Plenty of useful people in the west who ignore this.

The terrorist organisations must be defeated.

So can anyone here say in simple language what meaningful concessions were made to those whose property was taken in 1948 in the various deals offered? At face value , none of them seemed to offer enough to draw support from moderates, never mind extremists.

Yes, it's worth remembering Yasser Arafat's basic belief: that Israel should not exist.

I grew up in the 1970s, in the shadow of the PLO's terrorism. Skyjacking was a favourite hobby of theirs.

Have you any evidence that Hamas are planing to come for all of Europe? Or is this something you just know?

Their reasons were merely tactical. They really wanted 100% which isn't realistic.

Clinton got them 97% at the time.

Tactical reasons is short term thinking whereas strategic reasons is long term.

Palestinian leaders have a track record of tactical reasons and should remember they're not a major power in MER. So they have to be realistic.

Israeli leaders, like them or not, have a track record of strategic planning which has resulted in evolved defensive and offensive measures against their enemies. E.g., IDF, Iron Dome, David's Sling, arming Israeli citizens, etc.

Strategic thinking is what you want.

Hamas also have tactical thinking and not strategic planning as they know they cannot defeat the IDF militarily.

It's about perspective. The reasons are valid they didn't agree to it.

Yes.

And then you have to factor in the fact that most of the rest of the Middle East does not want Israel to exist - mostly because they are fundamentally Jew-hating cultures.

Don't forget the 1967 war - it was aimed at wiping Israel off the map as both a nation, and a sanctuary state for Jewish people.

Yep, absolutely anything to deflect from Palestinian leaders absolutely failing the Palestinian people for decades by preferring to pick repeated fights in the region and not just with Israel either!

Even PA President Abbas admitted Arab leaders were wrong to reject the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

Reject then fight ad nauseum is s terrible, terrible plan as Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman pointed out as they have no real power in the region & should accept a deal. Rejection is a tactical response to a situation they don't have a strategic ability to achieve.

You don't get better deals long after rejecting the best deal there ever was on the table (1947 UN Partition Plan) as all subsequent deals can never be as good.

I call it the Repetition of Deflection Method.

And UN GA Resolution 194 is not legally binding.

I'm still not seeing a link but whatever. If you want to talk about how terrible Israel you have dozens of other threads to chose from.

The copy and paste below it was a typo.

What link?

Seriously, what I have to say is in the link and states the case better than I ever could. The Palestinians should have accepted a subpar deal? Maybe they should have to avoid a genocide?

Do you have anything to say or do you just want to show everyone you know how to copy and paste from Wikipedia?

And on the other side....

On 1 January, the Palestinian Negotiating Team (NAD) published an open letter, explaining why the proposals would "fail to satisfy the conditions required for a permanent peace". They claimed that the parameters divided the Palestinian state, including East Jerusalem, into separate cantons and unconnected islands, and protested the surrender the right of return of Palestinian refugees and lack of clarity and details. Clinton's proposal was not accompanied by a map; only the Israelis presented a map, which would allegedly render the Palestinian state unviable and lacking direct access to international borders. The Palestinians opposed the Israeli annexation of settlement blocs in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, which they claimed subordinated the contiguity of the Palestinian state. They also protested that Israel would gain control over their natural resources, and was planning on ceding them less valuable land on the outskirts of West Bank and Gaza in exchange.[8][28] While Arafat flew to Washington to meet with President Clinton, the newspaper Al-Ayyam published in Arabic a letter to Clinton with the Palestinian reservations.[29]

On 2 January 2001, at a meeting in the White House, Arafat gave his qualified agreement to the Parameters with reservations. In a memorandum, his Negotiations Support Unit (NSU) had warned him "that the proposals in general are too vague and unclear to form an acceptable framework for an agreement".[30] The negotiation team opposed the use of percentages. First, the Israelis were to make clear which reasonable needs they had in specific areas; without a map, the percentages given were also ambiguous, as the Israelis did not include all disputed land or part of the Dead Sea, and it was unclear where the 80% proportion of settlers would remain. All Israeli settlers taken together occupied around 1.8% of the West Bank. The Palestinian concerns about lack of contiguity were largely related to Israeli control over large swaths of land in key development areas such as Jerusalem and Bethlehem, due to the large settlement blocs. Palestinians would be unable to move without restriction within their own state.[30]

A PLO website gives further comments on the Parameters.[31] The Palestinian position about the right of return was, as it has always been, that it is an individual universal right which can never be set aside. This right they see acknowledged in UN resolution 194.[32]

Indeed.

Yep, as Bill Clinton said to Yasser Arafat in 2001 when Arafat rejected yet another deal - "You are leading your people and the region to catastrophe!"

Clinton has been proven correct, sadly.

Hamas appear to be getting what they wanted- drawing Hezbollah into outright war. Netanyahu wants it too- it puts off his day of accountability and that only a truly existential threat to Israel will overcome America’s weariness of getting more directly involved in Middle Eastern conflicts. There needs to be a ceasefire, hostage deal and de-escalation, even if it’s the wobbliest of pauses , parsed in the most ambiguous language.

I suppose that means realistically there's a population of young Palestinians formed by this into hatred