> And I assume everyone who doesn't agree with you is just misled?

That's a strawman argument unrelated to what I said. It can just as well be applied to you.

> The Israelis use the accusation of antisemitism to try to shut up critics.

That doesn't mean it isn't true. I was very much on the side of "this isn't a big deal" until recent events. People here and elsewhere have convinced me that antisemitism is far more prevalent than I had assumed.

> In Europe, Israel has been cozying up with all sorts of antisemitic movements, like Hungarian fascists under Orban

You're associating the currently terrible government run by a criminal with Israel. I suggest re-reading my response. You're running a flawed "whataboutism" argument trying to find problems with Israel. This is flawed because:

a. I specifically stated that Israel isn't innocent and did a lot of wrong.

b. The current government is exceptionally bad and part of the problem.

You seem to ignore both points and are trying to drag the discussion into a direction that ignores my points.

> The major problem with Oslo was that it did not in any way guarantee the creation of a Palestinian state.

Oslo was a first step with the intention of expansion. As part of those expanded talks Barak placed an offer on the table for a full Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capitol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

Olmert made a second offer 8 years later which was even better https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realignment_plan

I'm not saying these offers were perfect. But they would have been a reasonable start and a way to build trust. This could have lead to a peaceful co-existence and independence.

> The Palestinians made massive concessions when they signed the Oslo Accords. They recognized the state of Israel.

That's a massive concession???

Thanks for giving us the right to exist. Wow. Amazing concession.

> They conceded everything beyond the Green Line, which constitutes 78% of Palestine.

That would have been theirs. The Palestinian history is one of picking bad greedy leaders who refuse to compromise. In the 40's they had a regiment fighting for Hitler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawzi_al-Qawuqji
Instead of compromising with the Jews on the formation of Israel (which gave them land continuity and control) they chose to go to war.

Notice that Egypt and Jordan could have given them the land we're discussing now. They didn't. Their leaders kept making those mistakes and losing on wars. The first good move they made was when the PLO understood that violence against Israel just doesn't work. This brought a peace accord and progress. But again, Hamas sabotaged that and Arafat/Abu Mazen didn't have the sway to make a proper peace treaty.

Israel is the one in power. It won all the wars at great cost of lives. Wars it didn't choose. It made the concessions, not the other way around.

> They only asked for the remaining 22%. But after they made those huge, historic concessions, the Israelis began trying to negotiate over everything that was left.

Again a delusional argument that ignores 9M people most of whom were born in this 78% of land. Might as well ask the USA to give back the land to native Americans. The fact that you're starting from this point puts you in a bad place. That's the exact problem of the Hamas, the delusion that the clock can be taken back.

Furthermore, the territories we're discussing include big settlements. Israel offered many things including traded lands which would provide compensation for territories used by settlements. In the past it cleared settlements including all the ones in Gaza. That meant using the army against Israeli citizens to forcefully remove them.

> The US is the one outside party that could actually pressure the Israelis to accept the Palestinians' reasonable offer of peace based on the 1967 lines, but the US is hopelessly pro-Israel.

The US did pressure Israel. Due to that pressure it left Gaza (against its will) and cleared the settlements... Then the people of Gaza voted in Hamas who killed the Fatah and took over. That led us to this situation right here.

It's easy to say "pressure" but that pressure should be used intelligently and not with the purpose of satisfying a synthetic benchmark.

If Palestinians are so downtrodden and persecuted why didn't they take the offers for statehood?

The way I'm seeing this the pressure is only on Israel. Hamas has no pressure points since it's a terror organization that keeps disrupting.

Time past. This is a delusional argument that ignores the situation in the field. Settlements are a terrible

> The Israelis have felt for the last 20 years that they can do anything to the Palestinians and ignore the Palestinians' demands for basic rights and a state of their own.

On that I actually agree with you but you're reading the situation wrong.

In 2020 the Islamic Jihad fired missiles at Israel. Israel retaliated and the Hamas chose to stand aside. In retrospect this was a calculated move to breed complacency within Israel, but back then a lot of us saw it as a sign of change. Maybe Hamas is actually interested in the welfare of its own people... They weren't.

The result of the violence is indeed that Israelis are feeling pain. But as you can clearly see, this doesn't end well for the Palestinians. The country has moved further to the right in ideology because of that. Fewer people believe a two state solution is possible. More people feel persecuted internationally which is helping to move the country even further to the right.

This same impact is happening with the Palestinians who have also moved more towards the Hamas. This is pushing the prospect of a Palestinian state further away and reducing the willingness of Israelis to compromise. Further pressure just makes things worse.

Peace is a hard thing to achieve. Oslo accord started thanks to the PLOs decision to stop the violence. Right now we're getting further away from it.