This is a simplistic history of the region. There was no “carving out of land from one group of people to give to another.” In fact, that land was never controlled by a group of Arabs calling themselves “Palestinian.” It had been controlled, off and on, by Muslims, but not always Arabs, and never by a people with a coherent identity as “Palestinians.”
You may want to check whether Israel has offered a state to Palestinians before. First of all, Palestianian Arabs (they didn’t have much of a national identity until later in the 20th century, after Israel was created) were initially part of Arab countries. Those countries attacked Israel to wipe it off the map. None of them recognized Israel until after Israel occupied territories partitioned to the Arabs in the 6 Days War and after Israel gave the Sinai back to Egypt after the Yom Kippur war. Most recently, Arafat was given a formal offer of a Palestinian state but rejected it because it didn’t include enough (probably, all) of Israel. Let’s also not pretend that Fatah wasn’t a terrorist organization originally bent on erasing Israel, too (the PLO only reminded terrorism and recognized Israel in 1993).
So, again, it’s more than a little facile to expect Israel to give up its own bargaining chips (land) for peace when the entire history of the Arab interaction with Israel is to seek Israeli annihilation, and when the current conflict is with the terrorist government of a territory Israel isn’t even occupying. Every encroachment by Israel has been in response to violence initiated by Arabs.
Yes, there was indeed a carving out of land from one group of people to give to another. If you're an Arab living in Jaffa (Tel Aviv didn't exist before the 20th century, so much for history) in 1947, there's nothing fair about the UN saying, "This is part of a Jewish state now." Arabs have been living in the area for well over a thousand years. Arab or Muslim control of Jerusalem exceeds Jewish control of Jerusalem by some margin. Am I to be lead to believe that Jewish people have a uniquely better claim to the land than everyone else? They certainly have a better claim than me. Do they have a better claim than an Arab whose family has been there for hundreds of years? Not particularly, if it all. If we're going to grant Israel credit for the existence of a Kingdom of Israel 3000+ years ago, we shouldn't be quick to dismiss the Arabs of Palestine coming to identify themselves as Palestinian. There wasn't an Israel 100 years ago either. That doesn't mean it isn't real now. A Palestinian today has more right to call himself a Palestinian than a British colonist had to call himself an American in 1776.
Unfortunately for your narrative, there was conflict and a desire for ethnic cleansing before the Arab League invasion in May 1948. Ben Gurion approved Plan Dalet in March 1948. The Deir Yassin massacre was committed in April 1948 by the Irgun, which was every bit a "terrorist" organization (see for example the King David Hotel bombing in 1946). The IDF took control of Lydda and Ramle before expelling +50,000 Arab civilians in July. Did Israel distance itself from the crimes its leaders committed at the time? Nope, it embraced it. Ben Gurion, Begin, and Rabin became PMs. They were allotted land, they didn't want Arabs on it, and they made a concerted effort to kick Arabs out. Both Morris’s and Tessler’s books are good on the subject. Neither is a leftist rag. If you’ve read either, good on you
“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”- Ben Gurion
“Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. … Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice.” - Ben Gurion
“We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, ‘What is to be done with the Palestinian population?’ Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said, ‘Drive them out!’ “- Rabin
“The compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own feet during the days of the First and Second Temple”- Ben Gurion
"We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai.”- Ben Gurion
When the Palestinians say that they have been the victim of ethnic cleansing, you don’t need to believe them. Innocent, peace-loving Ben Gurion has done the work for you.
Per Ehud Barak, the offer the Palestinians got at Camp David gave Israel sovereignty over the Temple Mount, split the West Bank into two parts with Israel controlling a strip in the middle, and would see the Palestinians cede 8% of the West Bank to Israel. Some smaller amount of land would be swapped back to the Palestinians (other sources claim the ratio was to be 8 or 9 to 1 in Israel’s favor). Gaza would remain separated from the West Bank. The two sides have never been close to agreeing on the status of refugees. Was Arafat obliged to accept that? “We’ll give you a state that we shrink and cut into pieces, and it’s your fault if you reject the opportunity.” Surely you can’t say that the Palestinians had to take any offer shown their way. If you think they ought to have accepted it, fine, but it doesn’t end the issue (or absolve Israel of responsibility). Israel has every reason to get out of the quagmire that is the West Bank, but Likud and the other right-wing parties bank on settler support there. Barak was willing to compromise on that subject. Netanyahu is not, and he’s leading Israel further into the abyss
As it concerns October 7, Israelis and Palestinians both have the right to defend themselves. Neither has a right to vengeance. Hamas attacking the Nahal Oz military base can be considered a legitimate act of resistance. Slaughtering the kibbutzim nearby or ravers elsewhere is quite clearly not. It is similar with Hezbollah. Going after Israeli tanks in South Lebanon is legitimate. Blowing up a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires is murder. Israel didn’t have a problem with Hezbollah (because it didn’t exist) until it occupied South Lebanon
Hamas isn’t a major US ally. Hamas isn’t obligated to receive billions of American aid each year despite the world’s worst kept secret that it has nuclear weapons (thereby making it ineligible to receive said aid). Yahya Sinwar hasn’t addressed Congress multiple times. Hamas can go rot in hell, and Netanyahu can go join them. Outrage at Islamist fascists is automatic. Outrage at Israel for killing more civilians by a factor of at least 10 and maintaining an occupation another people for 50 years is radical. Israel put the Palestinians in a pressure cooker. It needs to take the lid off. They can be racist bullies on their own dime. There’s no cause for the US to be tied down defending them religiously
The simplistic view of history is your own
