Obviously, the history of that region is long and complex. But given the historic persecution for over 2000 years, Israel NEEDS to exist as a beacon and safe haven for Jews should they want to relocate there. And Israel must remain a primary Jewish nation. Many of my fellow progressives in the USA do spout the very same five points you address. Some also claim that the whole area should be a single nation most notably Jeff Halper. He advocates a democratic single nation with rights for all. I am not an islamaphobe- I am actually an atheist- but pragmatically speaking, we have not seen a real democratic Muslim nation and in places where elections got held (Egypt) the population voted in a more extreme version of Islamic government! Heck, we can't even get real and full democracy in the USA!
I fully agree on the two state solution but see #2 below. But I disagree that the 2000 offer to Arafat was a decent agreement. Per an article on Wikipedia: "Settlement blocs, bypassed roads and annexed lands would create barriers between Nablus and Jenin with Ramallah. The Ramallah bloc would in turn be divided from Bethlehem and Hebron. A separate and smaller bloc would contain Jericho. Further, the border between West Bank and Jordan would additionally be under Israeli control. The Palestinian Authority would receive pockets of East Jerusalem which would be surrounded entirely by annexed lands in the West Bank."
In other words, the Palestinians were offered a sort of swiss-cheese nation. Israel also demanded control of water resources in the West Bank.
But you are correct I think- the Israelis need to be confident that they can trust a palestinian nation to be peaceful and co-exist.
But to your points I have addressed my thoughts on each.
1.
Israel is a colonial entity in the Middle East that requires “decolonization.”
A: Agree with you here- it is a ridiculous assertion
2.
Israel is an “Apartheid” state.
A: Yeah- not sure apartheid is the correct term. Arabs citizens in Israel do face discrimination. Not much differnce from how USA treated (treats) African-Americans often. I think the "apartheid" term is more directly related to how Israeli policy, especially under Netanyahu, has treated the citizens of the West Bank and how those in Gaza were treated before Israel decided to remove all settlements in that zone. As of 2018 the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs recorded 705 obstacles to free movement within the West Bank alone- that doesn't count the restrictions for Palestinians traveling into Israel (which I have no problem defending Israel on that aspect). That was 2018! I am sure that over the last five years those obstacles have only increased. So-called Israeli settlers population in the West Bank has gone from 200,000 in year 2020 and now has 700,000! Israel is effectively doing what Great Britain did after Irish uprisings in Ulster- repopulating the region. It's not genocide but it could legitimately be called ethnic cleansing. The increase in these so-called settlers has undermined any real chance for a two-state solution. The continued addition of "settlements" in the West Bank is illegal under both international and Israeli law but continues!
3.
Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians.
A: Agreed- not genocide- see above.
4.
The Hamas attacks are a legitimate form of “resistance.”
A: Agreed- Hamas has no interest in a political solution- their goal is to eliminate state of Israel.
5.
Fighting Hamas, and as a result killing 15,000 (and counting) innocent civilians will just create more extreme violence, so Israel must cease fire and negotiate peace.
A: It is pretty well known that continued oppression breeds more opposition. My best reference is with the IRA and opposition to British rule in Northern Ireland. Catholics were discriminated against by the British loyalists in Northern Ireland. The oppression and discrimination and lack of real economic opportunities added recruits to the IRA who committed acts of terror which then were retaliated by the English govt with draconian treatment of the population which encouraged more recruits to the IRA. Eventually, both sides realized they couldn't keep fighting and reached political solution.
The key difference here from Hamas is that the IRA never wanted to eliminate the nation of England- the IRA used enough violence to get the British govt to agree to political resolutions. Hamas has no interest in political solutions.
