You're repeating a narrative that oversimplifies history and lets Hamas off the hook for deliberate choices. Let's take this point by point:
Yes, Israel captured Gaza in 1967 - from Egypt—in a defensive war started checks notes Egypt. Egypt had occupied Gaza for almost 20 years at that time, and by the way had denied Gazans citizenship, free movement or basically any rights, they were treated really poorly actually by Egypt and keep in mind the context here that Egypt were on their side of the conflict!
Then Nasser ordered UN peacekeepers out of the Sinai Peninsula, which had been a buffer since the 1956 Suez Crisis and closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and Arab forces from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq massed on Israel’s borders. If that isn't clear enough, Nasser publicly declared intentions to destroy Israel- “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel,” he said on May 27, 1967.
Really think that over for a minute and ask what YOUR country would do?
What Israel did was Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against Egypt's air force, destroying it on the ground. Jordan and Syria then attacked Israel, and Israel responded. Israel won that war -decisively and in just six days, during which they took control of Gaza and the Sinai Peninsula, which given what I just described is the least of what any country would do in their own defence!
A key point here is that once they did take control of the Sinai Peninsula they did not reciprocate and use it to attack Egypt - they actually just used it as a buffer zone and then handed it back in exchange for peace. So keep in mind every shred of evidence here shows Israel was acting purely in it's own defence with no aggression and their behavior. Israel is one of very few countries in history to do so: hand back land won in a defensive war in exchange for peace. It's rare because most countries keep land they’ve conquered in war, especially when the war was started by the other side.
Gaza at that time had been under Egyptian occupation with severe oppression for decades. It had no government or organised society! But what Israel did do during this "occupation" that they did not choose was allowed Gazans freedom of movement for the first time - they were allowed to visit Israel, schools were build, hospitals, UNRWA were invited in to develop infrastructure for the Gazan people and tens of thousands of Gazans were given jobs in Israel where wages were 5 - 10 times higher.
Under Egyptian control Gaza was neglected, isolated, and impoverished. After Israel took over roads, water systems, electricity, and hospitals were expanded and upgraded.The first modern hospitals, sewage systems, and reliable electricity came under Israeli civil administration.Trade and agriculture increased due to access to Israeli markets and Israeli investment. By the 1980s, Gaza's economy was growing, and unemployment was relatively low. Israel built schools and improved access to education. Infant mortality rates dropped and life expectancy increased - according to World Bank and UN figures at the time.
What Israel is criticised for was Israeli settlements in Gaza which were established after the war. By the early 2000s, there were 21 settlements in Gaza, home to about 9k Israelis, mainly concentrated in an area calong the southern coast. Though they occupied about 20% of the land, much of it was uninhabited sand dunes or farmland. However, the settlements required large military buffer zones and checkpoints because Gazans unfortunately did kill Jews, which inflamed tensions and created friction with the local Palestinian population.
Now you can look at this however you want to. From the Palestinian perspective, they represented land theft and occupation, especially as Gaza's 1.5 million Palestinians faced overcrowding and poverty. From the Israeli side, the settlements were viewed by some as a legitimate return to ancestral land or a necessary security buffer.
The goal was always stated, which was sufficient stability to be created in Gaza for it to safely govern itself and live as a peaceful neighbour to Israel in which Jews could freely live, as they did in Israel, but instead of that happening the first intifada happened.
Terrorism, extremism, and rejection of peace efforts led to closures, security measures, and decline. That increased security measures and began to reduce the freedoms Gazans had previously had. The Intifada led to the Oslo Accords and Gaza underwent significant changes. The Palestinian Authority was established and given civil and internal security control over most of Gaza, marking the first time Palestinians had self-rule in the territory. Israel partially withdrew its military from urban areas but retained control over borders, airspace, and Jewish settlements. but progress..
Then Hamas came on the scene somewhere in here, absolutely fuming that a two-state solution was being discussed and negotiated and demanded instead that Israel be annihilated and they have it all.
Israel then agreed to completely withdraw from Gaza in 2005. I have read the full withdrawal agreement and it was very fair and was done entirely in the hope that Gazans would self govern and make peace. They removed everything, every soldier and every settlement. Not one Israeli remained and Gazans were given a shot at self-governance fully. Movement in and out was restricted but not fully blocked. Israel still controlled borders, airspace, and waters, but no full blockade was in place. I think it's reasonable to assume if things had gone ahead peacefully that Israel would have withdrawn these last security measures, but sadly things went the other way.
People were hopeful (I remember, I was there!) that there would be peace going forward and someone reasonable would be elected to run Gaza, but Hamas was. And to be clear, when they were elected the Gazans knew full well that Hamas charter called for murdering Jews and that their sole political goal was annihilation of Israel through war and terror and they did actually vote for that.
Hamas didn’t just “rise out of desperation.” They published a charter in 1988 calling for the obliteration of Israel and the murder of Jews worldwide, long before the blockade or 2005 withdrawal. And they weren't elected solely because they stood up for Gazans' rights. what right do you think they offered? None! All they promised was murder.
They were elected in 2006 -one time -and haven't allowed another election since. They’ve violently crushed political rivals, used aid to build terror tunnels instead of infrastructure, and used children and civilians as shields and AFAIK until recently they have had pretty widespread support to the extent my understanding is that Abbas has held off arguing for a WB election because until recent events they were pretty certain Hamas would win a WB election and take control of all Palestinian territory.
So everything here is really just disingenuous. the evidence shows very clearly Israel only "occupies" anything to stop it's own citizens being killed. The border is controlled for security reasons, just as Egypt controls its own border with Gaza - and Egypt keeps it sealed for the same reasons Israel does: Hamas is a terror group that has attacked both.
Right now, I think China is occupying Tibet, Russia occupies Crimea, Turkey occupies Cyprus. Not out of self defence because those places are threats, but just because they want territory and control. Being intellectually honest, I do not count it as "occupation" when the goal is simply to stop a terror group from killing you.
But Hamas is certainly occupying and brutalising its own people. They’ve turned a strip of land that could have thrived into a launchpad for war, prioritising martyrdom over statehood. And even after October 7 - a massacre of civilians, rape, torture, and hostage-taking - many still excuse them as the “understandable reaction” of the oppressed through cherry picking parts of the story.
The true story as I see it is that Israel was given independence and the Arab nations were furious about this largely for reasons that relate to religious supremacy and pan-Arab nationalism. And ever since the Palestinian people have been used as pawns in the battle to undermine Israel. That means they have been denied resettlement, denied citizenship, denied a state (Egypt had 20 years to give them one!) and forced to remain eternal refugees and victims so people can keep up the effort to remove Israel from existence.
Had Egypt given the slightest shit about Palestinians they would have build a beautiful Gaza for them with self-rule and prosperity and they would have encouraged them to prosper. They didn't give two shits, and even today they watched as those kids were locked inside a warzone and refused to even let them out when Israel petitioned them for medical assistance for the wounded or sick.
As for Gaza, they have fallen prey to violent religious radicalism, which is a choice - not an inevitability. The Kurds, Tibetans, and millions of oppressed people have pursued justice without massacring civilians. Hamas chose terror, not resistance. And they did so with support from Iran, not for self-determination, but to create a radical Islamist state.
No one is trying to erase the history of Zionism or the suffering of Palestinians. But history is not a justification for terrorism, and pretending that Israel is uniquely guilty for trying to defend its people against a genocidal enemy is to apply a moral standard you wouldn't apply anywhere else.