[nahumfarchi]

That's quite a bit of selective reading there. Where you see "'67 borders", I see "Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea".

River = the Jordan River

Sea = the Mediterranean sea

=> calling for the destruction of Israel. But sure, we'll take '67 as an intermediate step.

[monocasa]

> Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.

I don't know how to read that except the willingness to compromise on 1967 borders, as long as those ejected in 1948 can return to their land and become Israeli citizens.

[nahumfarchi]

What about the Jews who were ejected from neighboring Arab countries during these various wars? Do they get to go back home? Do you truly believe a compromise can be reached with an organization that committed a massacre on the scale of October 7th? Personally, I'm willing to compromise a lot for peace (divide Jerusalem, give up the west bank, whatever. Fighting over land/religion is absurd), but I honestly don't believe that's what Hamas is aiming for. Their actions at least indicate otherwise.

[monocasa]

> What about the Jews who were ejected from neighboring Arab countries during these various wars? Do they get to go back home?

Yes, they should also be allowed back and several countries have explicitly allowed such a thing.

> Do you truly believe a compromise can be reached with an organization that committed a massacre on the scale of October 7th? Personally, I'm willing to compromise a lot for peace (divide Jerusalem, give up the west bank, whatever. Fighting over land/religion is absurd), but I honestly don't believe that's what Hamas is aiming for. Their actions at least indicate otherwise.

I don't think compromise is an option that has legitimately been tried.

[_rahy]

Compromise has been tried. The creation of Israel was a compromise. Rejected by the Arab states. Oslo was a compromise. Rejected by Arafat. Camp David 2000 was a compromise. Rejected again by Arafat.

The Palestinian position is that Oslo and Camp David were not good faith compromises by Israel, but even if so Arafat made no counter-offer. He rejected the offers out of hand. Then the second Intifada started and ushered in Likud and Netanyahu which led us to where we are today.

As far as a Palestinian right-of-return to within Israel's borders. It would be the demographic end of a Jewish democratic Israel. It's the one thing that Israel absolutely will not and cannot compromise on. It's an unreasonable demand.

To my mind: Palestinians have never had effective leadership and they've been used as pawns by the other Arab nations. The lack of Palestinian leadership is not entirely the Palestinians' doing, at least since Arafat anyway. Israel has intentionally kept West Bank and Gaza leadership divided. Nonetheless, Palestinians are going to need to figure out a way to have effective leadership. Someone who is motivated and empowered to negotiate for peace, recognizing that Palestinians are not negotiating from a position of strength.

[jraby3]

This is a ridiculous comment. Do you really think the decedents of 150k Iraqis are going to go back to Iraq for example???

In what world would that ever happen? Would those people ever be safe there?

And that’s just one of a dozen countries that tortured and killed Jews in the name of Allah.

[isr]

Unfortunately for the general tenor of this thread, you're repeating propaganda which has been widely debunked by Iraqi Jews themselves.

For example: [Avi Shlaims book "Three Worlds"](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/62918049-three-worlds)

There has been a longstanding and unsinkable narrative that, frustrated by the refusal of Jewish communities in Arab lands to move to the early Israel, an active campaign of bombings etc was launched by Israel itself, surreptitiously, in order to exarcerbate tensions already caused by 1948.

Of course, the fact that these communities had existed within the Arab world for centuries itself belies the notion that the Arabs wanted to exterminate them "for Allah". As anyone with even a passing knowledge of history can attest to.

[jraby3]

I was born in Iraq where the Jewish community there was ethnically cleansed.

Way before the foundation of Israel, my father and uncles were restricted in numerous ways because of their Jewish ancestry. For example there were quotas on the number of Jews allowed in universities.

Jews were frequently imprisoned there (including my father and his brothers) for the sole reason of being Jewish.

[shwouchk]

> Of course, the fact that these communities had existed within the Arab world for centuries itself belies the notion that the Arabs wanted to exterminate them "for Allah". As anyone with even a passing knowledge of history can attest to.

Let’s apply that argument to eg mid 20th century Europe. Let me ask you this directly: are you denying the holocaust?

[monocasa]

I simply think they should be given the option. They should be welcome to choose not to take it as well.

[yyyk]

Note no promise of peace. So they just continue the war. Besides, return just means they can take over 100% from within. Either way it's not a 'compromise'.

[eli_gottlieb]

So in other words, a willingness to "compromise" while actually taking a complete victory: https://vimeo.com/36854424