Seeing people bleat out this talking point without even thinking to consider what the Palestinians were offered makes me so sad for the state of critical thinking.

Notably, David Ben Gurion saw this clearer than any of the people making this argument today:

"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?"

Now, for the record, I think they should “accept that” because Israel exists and will continue to exist and co-existence is the best way to avoid future deaths. But Shlomo Ben-Ami, the former Israeli Foreign Minister and a lead member of the Israeli negotiating team, said he would have rejected Camp David too if he were Palestinian. He also notes that it was the new Israeli government who walked away from negotiations after the deal had been agreed in principle.

And as I mention in the article, there has been a resolution before the United Nations for decades that follows international law, lays out the parameters and borders of a two-state solution (Israel has refused to officially define its borders and now seemingly rejects a two-state solution) and enjoys near universal support from member states. Including Palestine. This would involve a return to the 1967 borders and a right to return for Palestinians forced from their homes. Israel have turned this down every time. It seems they don't want to share the land either.

In fact, Netanyahu categorically refused a return to Israel's 1967 borders in 2011, even though all the land it's occupied since then is in contravention of international law.

And yes, Israel's heritage minister was advocating genocide when he claimed nuking Gaza was an option. Israel's defence minister was advocating genocide when he called Gaza's "human animals" and called for water and electricity to be shut off to the civilian population. Netanyahu was advocating genocide when he invoked Amalek in his fight against the Palestinians. In fact, Netanyahu stood on the floor of the general assembly and held up a map of Israel with Palestine completely erased. And this, by the way, was before October 7th.

From the river to the sea indeed.

Yes, we've all heard Netanyahu's wonderfully eloquent quote about Arabs putting down their weapons. And yes, it's largely true. The attacks, and especially the nature of the attacks, by Hamas and other terrorist group are indefensible.

But Netanyahu doesn’t mention that the peace brought about by Palestinians laying down there weapons would mean right-wing Israeli settlers continuing to violently steal land in the West Bank and Gaza, killing Palestinian civilians in the process, while Israel refuses to stop it and, often, actively supports it. He doesn’t mention that Palestinians would have to accept the daily mistreatment and discrimination they currently experience. He doesn’t mention the well documented infringements of human rights in the occupied territories. So sure, if the Palestinians would just quietly accept it as their land is stolen and their rights are ignored, the war would be over!

Lastly. I see you've dodged my question (don't worry, I suspected you would), but I'll still answer yours: I hold every person to a moral standard where they do everything in their power to avoid killing children. Is that clear enough? Hamas deliberately failed to meet that standard. Israel is deliberately failing to meet that standard now.

Of course the person holding a child in front of them is evil. But if that criminal is hiding under a bed in a prison cell brimming with kids, and my solution is to haphazardly throw grenades into the room in the hopes of collapsing the bed on top of him, it’s it possible that I’m a teensy bit responsible too? Even if that criminal wants to kill me? Is it possible that calling those kids “human shields” as justification for blowing them up, especially when I’ve blockaded them into that cell, is the most heinous, cowardly bullshit imaginable?