The one Israeli prime minister who was about to give the Palestinians (2) was killed by an Israeli
> Looking at Palestinians behavior they only want (1) that it's basically genocide for all Jewish Israelies. I guess it more complicated than you think
Wanting their land back does not imply wanting to exterminate its present occupants.
When you flag anything inconvenient/uncomfortable into oblivion, you are not having a discussion. You are simply pushing a narrative.
After Rabin was killed, there were offers that palestinians refused
After the Netanyahu-backed Hamas take over of Gaza, there was little hope for discussions, of course
- 2006 Elections were general elections in Palestinian Autonomy
- Both Israel and PA were against elections because they were afraid that Hamas will win but USA forced it because "democracy shall prevail and will resolve everything"
- Hamas won general elections in Palestinian Autonomy in 2006 and assembled government chaired by ismail haniyeh as prime minister
- USA is shocked as "nobody saw it coming"
- USA trained Fatah to coup against legitimate Palestinian government
- Coup succeeded in west bank and failed in gaza in 2007
- During coup, Hamas killed, dragged behind bikes or threw from rooftops those that opposed it
- After coup, Hamas tortured into obedience or killed all remaining opposition
Adding more context here:
- The training was also provided by Egypt, and Israel
Now, let's go back a few years and tackle what happened before all that. Hamas did not recognize Israel under the Oslo accords, effectively saying if they were in power, the work done towards the accords would be in vain.
What was the accord about?
- "The internationally drafted road map calls for an end to Israeli-Palestinian violence, a freeze in Israeli settlement activity, and the creation of a Palestinian state."
. At that point, the U.S. began to provide training in urban anti-terrorist techniques to members of the Presidential Guard, with the goal of strengthening Abbas's security forces. Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey also began to provide similar training for the Fatah forces, and Britain, Spain, and the European Union began to provide communications equipment, vehicles, and logistical support.
i am not even sure what exactly your second part of message meaning. unlike what OP said netanyahu wasn't PM at this timeframe. Ehud Olmert was, and he engaged in negotiations through his term till he resigned in 2008
Apologies for being unclear in the first part, not the intention. Just wanted to point out Egypt was also involved, not just the US. The addition of Israel was for what you said, and there to try and be as neutral as possible (albeit I should have chosen my language better).
- PA/PLO didn't want hamas to win elections because they didn't want to loose power and money. It extremely corrupt and hamas victory was partly predicated on this
- Israel didn't want hamas to win elections because it didn't want terrorist organization running state.
When hamas did win, negotiations still continued up till the moment that Obama got elected and killed them [0]. When Ismail Haniye got nominated and voted in as PM there was long discussion in Israel that maybe from position of the power hamas will feel responsibility and will became more political and moderate. I remember countless discussions on tv how moderate Haniye is and if he will embrace oslo accords, recognize Israel, etc.
and if we are talking about oslo accords, there were badly wounded [1] by palestinian side by that time (think also second intifada) and everybody just wanted to get to finish line
[0] https://www.meforum.org/israeli-settlements-american-pressur...
That's before you address the mass murder and ongoing genocide of Palestinians over the past 3 years. The earlier the Israelis make a lasting peace with Palestine, the better. Rhodesia & South Africa, at their peak, had kill-dead ratios up to 50-100, in some cases. Israel has never come close to that kind of effectiveness, despite heavy Western funding.
As America's Christian Zionist boomers grow old, and a younger generation that sees the situation as injustice grows up, Israel's situation will become more untenable and they might end up under ZAR-style sanctions within a few decades.
This is HackerNews, not politics news.
Netherlands loses control of it about the same time as US became independent and they developed mostly independently since then
Besides that Apartheid South Africa is remarkably similar to Israel (of course the race part is entirely replaced by religion/culture making assimilation into the Israeli society actually somewhat feasible).
Considering how many times Arabs started and lost wars against Israel, how many atrocities they did to Israel people it's not a surprise your #2 is not a popular option there.
Need to mention nothing can justify current levels of destruction in Gaza.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_in_occupied_Germany
1 year before the USA allowed aid agencies to feed starving children. German calorie intake 1/3 to 1/2 that of the target for Gaza.
The US firebombed cities to set them on fire.
The US ORDERED extra food be destroyed.
The US intentionally used food rations as a political tool to shape/punish/reward/control the occupied population.
That isn't having difficulty getting food in due to conflict.
A working pre-war aid system is going to be different during an ACTIVE war that the aided peoples initiated, especially when the aid came via the people that they started the war with. In addition resources have been forced to be diverted by the war that Gaza's government started as that was takes up a lot of resources/funds that were previously available for other things during the prior peacetime.
Normally a government plans for food supply issues prior to starting a war with their neighbors. Especially when all food comes through said neighbor.
They weren't bulldozing entire cities a year after the Nazi government collapsed. It's totally incomparable to the hate and viciousness we see from the Israelis.
What's the plan here? Kill 10% and the rest will start liking Israel?
Look, eventually the dust will settle on this and it will be clear how many people Israel killed and what little it accomplished. All the current rhetorical points are going to look extremely silly.
i am pretty sure that at end of 1944 you would have demanded allies to stop fighting and leave germany, because germany is pretty much finished, and whatever they are doing is extremely silly of not evil. battle of berlin was totally pointless, it only demolished 80% of city, killed 125k people in a couple of weeks and accomplished absolutely nothing. right ?
"More children have died in three weeks in Gaza than in the entire sum of conflicts around the world in the past four years." — Save the Children, October 2023
https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/least-10-children-kill...
> In 2024 alone, at least 600 children have been killed or injured in Myanmar.
https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/geneva-palais-briefing...
> As feared and as warned, the situation in Sudan has become fatal for a frighteningly large number of children. In reports UNICEF has received that cover the period from the start of the fighting until 25 April 2023, 190 children have been killed.
https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/unimaginable-horrors-m...
> In total, more than 50,000 children have reportedly been killed or injured since October 2023.
> Ukrainian officials reported that approximately 25,000 civilians had been killed…
Even if every one of those 25k were kids, still no.
The actual report "Save the Children" cites is available at https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4084012?ln=en&v=pdf - page three of the English report states:
> The violations verified in the greatest numbers were the killing (4,676) and maiming (7,291) of 11,967 children, the denial of humanitarian access (7,906 incidents), the recruitment and use of children (7,402) and the abduction of children (4,573). The number of children detained for actual or alleged association with armed groups including those which are currently under sanctions enacted by the Security Council, or for national security reasons, surged to 3,018, further depriving children of their rights. The highest numbers of grave violations were verified in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory (8,554), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (4,043), Somalia (2,568), Nigeria (2,436) and Haiti (2,269). The sharpest percentage increases in the number of violations were verified in Lebanon (545%), Mozambique (525%), Haiti (490%), Ethiopia (235%) and Ukraine (105%).
(A preemptive note: These are verified cases; so the real numbers will be higher. In both conflicts, verifying every or even most cases is… tough.)
https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/average-least-16-child...
> At least 2,406 children have been killed or injured since the escalation of the war in Ukraine nearly 1,000 days ago, according to the latest available verified reports.
When comparing numbers one should also compare high-end estimates vs. high-end estimates and conservative numbers vs. conservative numbers.
Half of Gaza are minors, which is quite unusual, and very much not the case in Ukraine.
https://data.unicef.org/how-many/how-many-children-under-18-... (6,609,605 / 37,732,836 )
https://data.unicef.org/how-many/how-many-children-under-18-... (2,415,888 / 5,409,202)
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ukraine-popul... "The median age in Ukraine is 41.8 years."
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/state-of-pale... "The median age in the State of Palestine is 20.1 years."
I would very much like both conflicts to stop hurting kids.
Yair Lapid might be considered third generation as both him and his mother were born in Tel Aviv, while his father is Yugoslavian.
Are you seriously trying to imply that there's some conspiracy trying to lie about Israeli demographics? That's absurd. I'll assume you're not.
Anyone who goes to Israel can see the ratios pretty readily. Many Israelis are fairly "brown" and clearly of Middle Eastern descent. There's also about 2% of the population in Israel who are black Ethiopian Jews. No serious academics contest the numbers of Sephardic / Mizrahim expelled from Arab Muslim nations after 1948 either that I've read.
The Likud, the current ruling party in Israel, has strong Sephardic / Mizrahi base [1]. Yes, there is bias and discrimination in Israeli society. Israelis debate about these things all the time, including Arab Israelis.
Some commentators believe the Mizrahim vote more far right and tend to be pro the Gaza war because of the ethnic cleansing that their parents and grandparents endured from the Muslim states.
The Seohardic Jews and Mizrahim lived in largely Muslim countries for centuries after Islamic empires conquered most of the middle east starting with the Rashidun Caliphate. They and other non-Muslims were treated as second class citizens and forced to pay jizyah tax every year. It's arguable that the Mizrahim were economically and educationally more suppressed than their European cousins, well at least until WWII.
1: https://www.972mag.com/why-mizrahis-dont-vote-for-the-left/
"If Israel isn't a European colonial project, then why are all of the Israeli heads of state European?"
> They and other non-Muslims were treated as second class citizens and forced to pay jizyah tax every year.
If they were paying the jizya then they weren't paying the zakat. Jizya also typically exempted People of the Book from military service.
There are a few things that made this possible. One important factor is the change of prime minister. Whereas Thatcher saw things only in terms of terrorists who need to be fought, John Major had more holistic view and recognised that in spite of the terrorism, there were some real structural problems that needed addressing. Even Ian Paisley admitted as much later in life, which would be roughly equivalent to Ben-Gvir admitting there is something to the Palestinian complaints.
I guess my point is there can be happy endings to these types of conflicts. No one wins with the current situation, certainly not Israel. Punching everyone around you in the face as a defensive strategy works fantastically well right up until the point you take a nap, at which point everyone will stomp on your head like it's a right watermelon.
You're right in drawing parallels between the two. But the ira seem to be far more pragmatic then the palestinians and for all their sins they never deliberately targeted women and children in the way organised palestinian terror does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Manchester_bombing
Terror was the aim, not death.
Paramilitaries on both sides carried out many actions that killed women and children.
Nowhere near the scale of Hamas, and certainly nothing close to the magnitude of the IDF.
The fear of Israeli right hardliners was that Gaza would become a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists who want to wipe out Israel. Obviously.
Idealism prevailed. Israel even unburied its dead so as not to leave them behind, because some realists were present and knew what the Gazans would do to those dead. But Israel withdrew.
Then everything the hardliners feared came true, ultimately culminating in Oct 7th. Immediately after withdrawl, Hamas took over.
Instead of building a near utopia with what was left behind and the billions in aid Gaza received, and building peace with Israel, Gaza armed itself to the teeth, raised generations of terrorists, and entrenched those terrorists in an elaborate sprawling network of tunnels.
October 7th 2023, thousands of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and thousands of unaffiliated everyday Gazan terrorists poured into Israel when the IDF were, to use your analogy, were caught napping.
Israel is a primarily Jewish country surrounded by neighbours who won't stop kicking each other regardless, and to whom Israel is a common enemy due to religion. Your analogy ignores the neighbours being racist sociopaths that will punch Israel at any opportunity and have done so historically repeatedly.
Israel will always have to sleep with one eye open. As do all civilised nations, lest we have another 9/11, 7/7, Boston Marathon bombing, Manchester Arena bombing etc.
How did that Jewishness result? It didn't materialize out of thin air, but as a result of the Jews expelling the Arabs from their homes at gunpoint, bulldozing their homes, and then building over the rubble. That has been the bone of contention for 70 years now.
Most of the terrorist threat in the West is a result of Israel's meddling in the region and the atrocities that have to be committed to protect them. OBL said as much in his Letter to America.
And the expulsion and persecution of Jews from Arab countries and Iran.
Regardless of what timescale you use, the presence of Jews in the region predates both other main Abrahamic religions by necessity, as Jesus was himself a Jew.
We can complain about how badly Britain and other colonial powers carved up failing empires til the cows come home. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh certainly can have an opinion on the British Empire. And great swathes of Africa can point in any direction and be pointing at someone who screwed them over.
At some point, we have to deal with how the world is now. History is important to learn from, agreed, but unless it's a really think history textbook it's not saving you from a terrorist putting a 7.62mm-based hole in you, or feeding you pressure-cooked ball bearings.
Most of the terrorist threat to the West is from Islamic extremists, foreign (inc imported) and domestic, and to a lesser extent the opposite end of the horseshoe it emboldens. To blame Israel for global or even regional Islamic extremism is both ironic and myopic. It's also academic. No change Israel could make is going to stop the Muslim majority countries wanting Israel wiped out.
> Didnt the jewish concenteation result from decades of "soft" power that evicted palestinian civilians as outcasts? (And in return festered terrorism.)
To which you basically replied:
> But look how bad all the others are and terrorism is almost all islamic.
This ignorance dehumanises and keeps the violence going. Israel cannot make confessions in a peace effort without acknowledging its decades of palestinian desintegration and apparently, the same is true for you.
You just can't accept that answer, because your worldview is built on imagining things, but not on reality. Hence the ad-hominems for op and infantilism for Palestinians.
I would argue that infantilizing group of people, based on their ethnicity, is also dehumanizing.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/12/israeli-ex-com...
> A former Israeli army commander, Herzi Halevi, has confirmed that more than 200,000 Palestinians have been killed or injured in the war in Gaza, and that “not once” in the course of the conflict were military operations inhibited by legal advice.
> Halevi stepped down as chief of staff in March after leading the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) for the first 17 months of the war, which is now approaching its second anniversary.
> The retired general told a community meeting in southern Israel earlier this week that more than 10% of Gaza’s 2.2 million population had been killed or injured – “more than 200,000 people”. That estimate is notable as it is close to the current figures provided by Gaza’s health ministry, which Israeli officials have frequently dismissed as Hamas propaganda, though the ministry figures have been deemed reliable by international humanitarian agencies.
Coupled with the IDF's own databases https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/aug/21...
> Figures from a classified Israeli military intelligence database indicate five out of six Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in Gaza have been civilians, an extreme rate of slaughter rarely matched in recent decades of warfare.
Coupled with the fact that half of Gaza is under 18, there's really only one rational conclusion here... and it's one the IDF largely doesn't dispute any more.
What reputable contradictory estimate would you like to highlight?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45360626
I'm left to conclude the fairly obvious.
The longer you engage in "politics" commenting while citing "mods said no politics" as a reason you can't cite any sources, the clearer this conclusion becomes.
Also, separately from the above, it looks like your account has been using HN primarily for political and nationalistic battle. That's not allowed here, and we ban accounts that do it, so please don't do this. Past explanations on this point: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
I do understand that it's your forum and your rules. I will try to abide by them.
I hope one day we shall meet in the place where there is no darkness.
Pure victim blaming from your side. Yes, Israel fought for its independence because Jews were suppressed. New was the Arabic nationalism, which to be fair was supported by less favorable regimes in Europe. But the success was due to some Arab nationalistic faction were very receptive here.
The Hebron massacre paints a picture that the Arab aggression wasn't due to Israel alone.
There were less Arabs driven from Israel than Jews from surrounding countries. The Arabs lost the war as well. It wasn't their land and it isn't their land now and they seriously need to accept that fact.
Algeria: 140,000 -> ~0
Morocco: 250,000 -> ~0
Yemen: 550,000 -> ~300
Iraq: 135,000 -> ~0
Lebanon: 20,000 -> ~40
Iran: 135,000 -> ~0
For instance, Moroccan Sultan Mohammed V protected his country's Jewish population of over 250k instead of straight up handing them over the Nazi-aligned Vichy regime.
Throughout all these countries, the Arabs & other non-Jews had a tight grip on state power and could have exterminated the Jews anytime they wanted. So, why didn't they? Why did the population of Jews in those countries grow for centuries? Isn't that the argument online Zionists use to defend their genocide in Palestine?
Western normies always lick up the 'they expelled us, so we had to expel the Palestinians,' but, please, don't do it here. It's wrong at best, and outright immoral at worst.
There are between 300 and 350 thousand Jews living in Iran. I presume the other numbers are similarly nonsensical.
Anyway read the article you linked to again, you completely misread it.
300,000–350,000 (est.)
Israel 200,000[1]–250,000[2]
United States 60,000–80,000[1]
Iran 9,100[3]
Canada 1,000
Australia ~740
There are 300~350 thousand Jews from Iran, but only 9,100 are estimated to still live there.
Palestine, or what remains of it Gaza and the West bank. Simply are resisting an foreign occupation/invasion. Modern Israel was created through the Balfour declaration.
To fight an invading force that is killing your people is very honourable, as old as tale.
It is recognised as an occupation by all British governments in the last two decades, recognised as genocide by Jewish scholars, ICC/ICJ. The only people that think otherwise is Israel and it's followers.
Further, there is no Hamas in the west bank yet we see gruesome killings of children there too.
Attempting to hide behind anti-Semitism no longer works.
Lastly, Israel has lost a new generation of young, infact it has educated them and their parents. Memories of Israel's horrible crimes will live on, and rightly the existence of Israel inside of Palestine will always be controversial.
False. Israel was established on its own by winning its war for independence and you are part of the remnants that still have a problem with that.
I don't know if that is to your own detriment, in most case it is just the usual inferiority complex towards Jews, which basically forms the foundation of the phenomenon of antisemitism. But it certainly is to the detriment of Palestinians.
That's quite the alternative history, it took some real guts to charge cavalry four miles across open ground into machine gun nests.
Not really, Israel was created 31 years after it.
> ICC
ICC charges do not include genocide; Khan sought an extermination charge which the pre-trial chamber rejected.
> ICJ
ICJ hasn't yet made any finding on the matter.
> there is no Hamas in the west bank yet
Yes there is, though they're not the de facto government there.
Neither the ICJ nor the ICC (not even the ICC prosecutor) has made any determination of genocide. The ICC prosecutor sought warrants on (and the ICC itself issued warrants on some and rejected other) various offenses that are typically means of genocide, but not on genocide itself, while the ICJ has allowed to a case to proceed charging genocide, but has made no determination that that took place.
There are other international institutions which have determined that genocide is occurring, but the ICC and ICJ are not among them.
That’s not to say that Israel isn’t committing genocide (it plainly is), but it doesn’t help to misrepresent where determinations about that have been made.
You make a good argument why a European people should not have established a country there. Doubly so considering it was already populated.
Second, while it's possible to complain about the circumstances of the creation of Israel, I'm not sure that doing so now, in context, offers anything constructive. It seems that by most reasonable definitions, Israel is a country, if a small one. Do you suggest that Israel be eradicated? If so, what happens to all the Israelis, who likely wouldn't be welcome in the area after the country's destruction? Is it any more justifiable to ethnically cleanse one group from the area than another?
I don't have an answer to this conflict, but it isn't clear to me that suggesting "this country shouldn't have existed at all" is an answer either.
Here's an article from 2019 published by Israeli media about how Netanyahu himself has directly funded Hamas for his own political gain: https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/netanyahu-money-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Independence_and_early_...
Both Palestinians and Israeli Jews have a long list of legitimate grievances, no doubt. The insistence that no, we are the ONLY ones with legitimate grievances is a major roadblock towards coming together. The refusal to recognise these grievances amounts to a refusal to recognise basic humanity and dignity of people, and is a catastrophic failure of empathy.
And yes, there are people on the Palestinian side who do this also, but they did not respond to my comment and you did.
What movement towards peace?
June 10, 2003 — Hamas co-founder Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi says in an interview with al-Jazeera: “By God, we will not leave one Jew in Palestine. We will fight them with all the strength we have. This is our land, not the Jews’.”
June 25, 2006 — Hamas militants enter Israel via a tunnel, disable a patrolling Israeli tank, kill two of its four-man crew, seize another crew member, Gilad Shalit, and drag him back to Gaza.
June 7, 2007 — Hamas wins a brief but bloody civil war against Palestinian Authority rule in the Gaza Strip and ousts all Fatah officials.
January 4, 2010 — For Hamas, power is more important than leadership, according to al–Ahram: “Here, we have to direct the following question to Hamas and its leaders: Is power more important to you than the suffering of the Palestinians which you claim to be concerned about? If the Palestinian people are suffering terribly, then relinquishing power, in fact merely returning the PA to the [Gaza] crossing points, is a small price to pay. If not, then this means that the [Hamas 2007] coup and capturing power is more important to you than that suffering.”
April 8, 2011 — “The Jews are the most despicable and contemptible nation to crawl upon the face of the Earth because they have displayed hostility to Allah,” former Hamas Culture Minister Atallah Abu Al-Subh says on Al-Aqsa Television.
December 8, 2012 — Less than three weeks after Pillar of Defense, the head of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal, marks the anniversary of Hamas’ founding by reiterating that the organization will never accept Israel and by calling for its elimination. Israel’s demise remains a core element of Hamas ideology and fervor.
May 5, 2014 — Mousa Abu Marzouk, the deputy chairman of Hamas’ politburo, says in Al-Monitor: “Hamas will never recognize Israel. This is a red line that cannot be crossed. We would have spared ourselves seven years of misery under the siege and two wars in 2008 and 2012 had we wanted to recognize Israel. … The al-Qassam Brigades’ weaponry is of national importance to confront the occupation. Hamas’ position in this regard is clear, and it will not allow any tampering with the brigades’ armament, under any circumstances, because it is a strategic asset for all Palestinians.
July 25, 2014 — Former head of Saudi intelligence Turki al-Faisal holds Hamas responsible for the bloodshed in the Gaza Strip because of its arrogance. He writes in the Saudi daily Asharq al-Awsat: “The knowledge that the people of Gaza would be subjected to a savage bloodshed and suffering should have put limits to Hamas’ arrogance, but it did not. Moreover, Hamas’ readiness to cause a huge amount of suffering before the inevitable return to a truce or a cease-fire clearly exposes the abyss of unconcern into which it has fallen.”
July 14, 2019 — “There are Jews everywhere. We must attack every Jew on planet Earth! We must slaughter and kill them, with Allah’s help,” Hamas politburo member Fathi Hammad says at a rally on the Israel-Gaza border, as quoted by the Gatestone Institute.
May 26, 2021 — “I’d like to use this opportunity to warn the Zionist occupation and its leaders. We support the eradication of Israel through armed jihad and struggle,” Yahya Sinwar says
I think everyone knows what happened in 2023.
But I cannot accept an off-hand suggestion that Hamas is in any way inclined towards peace with Israel. That is completely untrue, and I consider it dangerous to let that pass unanswered.
Falsely thinking that Hamas does want peace is an attitude that will not lead to peace, it will lead to more wars in the years to come.
That's something that the UK, Canada, and France all recognize, by the way. None of them want to see any role for Hamas in the future either.
You are, perhaps, not alone in thinking that Hamas has or has EVER had "peaceful" intentions, so I felt it called for a detailed justification why that was an incorrect position.
What's laughable, is to complain about "one-sided list of grievances" in a post on this issue. Have you seen any of the discussions on HN on this topic in the past two years?
Whether you believe them is another issue of course. But you need to at least try and no one ever did. After many years of refusing to talk to the IRA in the end the British government did, and that was key to the lasting peace. This was hugely controversial at the time and Major government lead talks in secret which were leaked. Lots of drama. But in the end it worked. In 1988 people could have said about the IRA what you're saying about Hamas (and they did). The Good Friday accord didn't even demand immediate disarmament by the way, but rather over time. There were plenty of violent hick-ups too (e.g. Real IRA).
And sure, long-term there is no future for Hamas – certainly not the paramilitary wing – just as there wasn't for the IRA. But Sinn Féin (IRA's political wing) still exists and that's okay. It's impossible to exclude Hamas from any and all negotiations in the short term because they're doing the fighting.
A pure military solution will never be the answer (well, except via genocide, which is hardly an "answer"). Even if one could kill every single Hamas member, you will just end up with a new Hamas-ng and we're back where we started. This is why you need to address some of the underlying injustices, which is that the British government did.
And that was my entire point. Everything may seem impossible and hopeless today. But so did things in 1988 NI. There are real challenges for sure, but the outlines of a solution are actually not all that complicated.
It's a sad conflict that can't be solved without some kind of superior external force, that would use extreme economic and military measures to make two sides tolerate each other. America is closest to that force, and they've chosen their side. Best Palestinians can hope for is a peaceful relocation somewhere else I'm afraid.
A genocide doesn't happen. While we see a lot of death in wars and any death it too much, it isn't relevant in the grand scheme of things regarding population numbers.
Number 1 will never happen, it would end in a real genocide that does fit the term. Number 2 has become less likely and was rejected thoroughly in the past by Palestinians. Number 3 is actually Israel occupying Gaza for a long time and it will probably prompt a repeated aggression in the future. This is the most likely option for now.
Perhaps with Hamas ousted and the realization how much suffering their aggression did inflict, there can be peace in the future, that results in something like number 2.
There is no excuse for what Israel and the US have done. Not that there weren't wrongs by Hamas but there is no comparison at this point. It's repugnant that that argument is made and it's not something that will ever be forgotten.
1. South Africa / Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) where Palestine and Israel is united leading to an exodus of the former ethno-nationalist "managerial" class.
2. Two-state solution where an acceptance of each other is grown over generations.
3. Continuation of the current genocide of the Palestinian people until they are exterminated from their land. Leading to the isolation of Israel.
For Israel and the Israeli people the only palatable option should be 2, but they seem hellbent on 3 as per how Israeli people post here on HN and the actions of their democratically elected government.