Totally agree with AC on this. The formation of the state of Israel post WWII by the colonial powers is one of the great blunders of history. The Arab world gave it their best shot to obliterate Israel in 1967, and they failed badly, and they've had no stomach for a repeat ever since, realising Israel with US backing is far to strong. The question now is what becomes of the 5 million Palestinians? Other Arab countries don't want them, Israel certainly don't want them, and no one else wants them. The Palestinians want a homeland of their own. Hamas realise that is only achievable through a two state solution, even the friends of the Israelis realise that is the only solution. The only people who wont accept that are the hard line Zionists within the Israeli government and people.

The actions of Hamas on October 7th, was a desperate act by a desperate people, doomed to failure. Where to from here? If the Zionists have their way most of the Palestinian people will be exterminated, and the remainder will become a subservient underclass serving the Jews.

Many experts believe that if a two state solution is not
achieved the result will continue to be a "one state reality
akin to apartheid."

Hi Yuyutsu,
"Most of them want to reunite with Syria, while some in Gaza prefer to be part of Egypt, if only they were allowed."
Well, that's what self-determination means, which was originally promised to them to fight the Ottomans...
That's how this whole damn mess got started in the modern era, they were lied to back when it wasn't as much of a contentious issue to colonise and displace existing inhabitants that were routinely not even considered to be people.
- You convinced me that going back any further than 1967 was unrealistic and that compromises need to be made.
The 1973 war occurred because some Palestinians were not happy about the land taken in 1967 so we know animosity goes back further than that.
And considering that thieves should never become owners (with respect to their historical connection - though I'm not sure that connection applies to Ashkenazi Jews from Khazaria) then I think it's quite a fair compromise.

Makes me think we're dealing with two kids fighting over a toy here.
"Learn to bloody share or we'll take it off you and you'll both get nothing"
- There, problem solved.

"Second, this applies only when Muslims are strong - when weak they can compromise."
That's sounds in line with what I've heard regarding Islam
- 'Make treaties when you are weak, until you are strong enough to discard them'

Hi Paul,
"The formation of the state of Israel post WWII by the colonial powers is one of the great blunders of history."
Blunder? Well, only if you think this was about a 'Home for the Jews';
It may have also been about the British / Western powers wanting a foothold in the M/E at a time when the coal era was ending and the oil era was beginning.

Hi AC,

True to a degree, I think the West had a strangle hold on ME oil, 80% of "free world" oil was in Saudi Arabia at the time, and they had that tied up though a puppet regime they had installed there, and in places like Iran, which also had oil. From a human perspective the formation of Israel was a blunder, but who cares about humans. From a political perspective it did serve 2 purposes it pissed off the Jews from Western countries. The Nazi's, simply gassed them, the Allies simply exiled them off to Palestine. Anyway the Jews were somewhat thankful of the Allies, because they had stopped the Nazis from gassing them.

There is only one solution: the total destruction of Hamas, all other Islamic terrorists, and Islam itself. The West doesn't have what it takes to do that anymore, so the mayhem will continue; it will become so boring that it will cease to be mentioned.

Dear Critic,

«Well, that's what self-determination means, which was originally promised to them to fight the Ottomans...»

While they may decide to raise the Syrian flag, it is geographically impossible to connect the West Bank with Syria... well, not unless Syria fights Jordan and manages to grab Jordanian territories, or unless "Palestinians" win all the way "from the river to the sea". Syria will remain hostile to Israel (and Jordan) for the foreseeable future, regardless of any peace agreement or a Palestinian state.

The British could not promise anything to Palestinians simply because they were none as such. They did give a vague promise to Arabs in general:

"the British had also promised Arab nationalists that a united Arab country, covering most of the Arab Middle East, would result if the Ottoman Turks were defeated." - http://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/conflict-Palestine

"In order to enlist the military and political support of the Arabs, Britain promises to support their struggle for independence in most of the lands hitherto ruled by the Ottoman Turks, presumably including Palestine" - http://www.bu.edu/mzank/Jerusalem/p/period7-1-1.htm

Either way, Arabs did not play any significant role in the first-world-war: the locust plague did more. The corrupt Ottoman Empire was already crumbling, the Turkish soldiers were hungry and the British were winning anyway.

«The 1973 war occurred because...»

Because Egypt found an opportunity to try and regain its Sinai peninsula, and Syria to try and regain its Golan Heights.

The later-called "Palestinians", who at the time considered themselves just "Arab", were quite happy at the time to be under Israeli administration, because the Jewish settlers have not yet arrived and they flourished economically like never before, enjoying plenty of Israeli+international tourism and employment opportunities in Israel. AT THE TIME, Israel treated them relatively better than did Jordan.

Even then, the occupation was already corrupting the Israeli society from within, but that's a separate story.

«Makes me think we're dealing with two kids fighting over a toy here.»

That would have been a child's play... but adults fail to take the toy away because they mistakenly think there're only two kids there.