I doubt that you will be swayed by facts, but just for the record: in 2000 Israel offered Hamas to become a fully sovereign nation on 100% of Gaza's territory (and 95% of the West Bank) with East Jerusalem as their capital. Hamas declined. In 2005 Israel voluntarily disengaged from Gaza and enabled self-rule, hoping this would be a step towards peace. It wasn't. In 2011 there was another offer for a "two states for two peoples" solution, Hamas once again rejected it.

None of this is surprising since the Hamas is a fanatic Muslim group following the most militant tenets of Islam. Their publicly-stated charter is to utterly destroy Israel ("drive the jews into the sea") and create a Muslim nation on the entire area of Palestine. So anything less than that is a non-starter. Any Jew left alive in Israel means that they haven't finished yet.

Note that there's nothing in the charter about the Palestinian people - The Hamas takes no civic or sovereign responsibility for the population which they govern. In other words, Hamas sees the Palestinian people as a consumable resource in their fight to bring Islam to 100% of the territory historically referred to as "Palestine". So building tunnels under schools and hospitals is allowed. Diverting humanitarian aid to the military infrastructure while the population starves is fine. Indoctrinating children from kindergarten about the glory of killing Jews is standard procedure. etc. Using the Gaza residents as human shields is valuable both for reducing Hamas casualties as well as increasing collateral damage which makes Israel "look bad" in the international community.

Compromise is difficult because when negotiating with someone who wants you dead, how do you meet them halfway ?

[–] matcha_addict@lemy.lol 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why agree to this "compromise" when Israel violated the previous one?

Drive the vast majority of a population from their homes, and to a tiny strip of their former homeland, then "generously" offer them to just remain there in their little concentration camp. And not even guaranteed, given Israel's history. Gee, I wonder why they rejected?

It's not surprising that this is what occupiers think is "compromise".

[–] addys@lemmy.ninja -4 points 1 year ago

If you know enough history to be familiar with the "previous ones" then you know that that they could have gotten half of Israel's territory in 1947 but instead they (the Arab nations) preferred to go to war to take it all. And they failed. And then again in 68, same story. BTW Israel has repeatedly offered to transfer control of Gaza to Egypt, the Egyptians have no interest in helping them out in any way. It's more expedient for all the Arab world that Gaza remains a festering sore in Israel's side - of course at the expense of the poor Palestinians who are stuck there. Even now, Egypt is unwilling to open it's border for Palestinians who wish to flee the area. But it's obviously more fashionable to blame Israel for creating a "concentration camp" even after all of that. No-other country in the region is willing to lift a finger to help them, yet you expect the most from the country which Gaza has sworn to destroy and attacks at every opportunity?

[–] ATiredPhilosopher@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Israel already look horrible to anyone paying attention, the entire West is backing them

[–] BaldProphet@kbin.social -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Go further back, even. The UN Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947 would have given Palestine its own territory, splitting it with Israel 45/55. The Arab League and Arab Higher Committee of Palestine both rejected it.

It's not like compromises have never been offered. The Arabs have simply never been willing to accept anything less than the expulsion of the Jews from the territory.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

From their perspective, someone just moved into their house one day and when they objected they said "let's compromise, you can keep half of the house." No wonder they rejected that compromise.

Unfortunately we're now a couple of generations past that initial event so it's a lot more complicated at this point.

[–] TaTTe@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think they "just moved in". They've lived there for a long time as well, but the former country of Palestine was quite divided ethnically, and that caused issues due to extremists (on both sides).

The purpose of splitting Palestine was to get two countries that were at least less divided ethnically, but due to where people lived Israel still remained quite evenly divided between muslims and jews whereas the new Palestine was close to 100% muslims.

Countries have been split all over the world before in somewhat similar manners without causing as big conflicts, showing that this could've been done in a peaceful manner. What went wrong here? I don't know.

[–] istdaslol@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago

Just an addendum, the partition is based on the previous split of Transjordan Palestine after ww1, where there was a 80/20 split for the Arabs. With the Israeli getting most of Palestine.

[–] matcha_addict@lemy.lol 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Palestinians are not saying to expel Jews. They are saying to remove the ethnoreligious state, not the Jews themselves.

This was reiterated countless of times. They seek a Democratic state where Jews and non jews can be equal.