If you know enough history to be familiar with the "previous ones" then you know that that they could have gotten half of Israel's territory in 1947 but instead they (the Arab nations) preferred to go to war to take it all. And they failed. And then again in 68, same story. BTW Israel has repeatedly offered to transfer control of Gaza to Egypt, the Egyptians have no interest in helping them out in any way. It's more expedient for all the Arab world that Gaza remains a festering sore in Israel's side - of course at the expense of the poor Palestinians who are stuck there. Even now, Egypt is unwilling to open it's border for Palestinians who wish to flee the area. But it's obviously more fashionable to blame Israel for creating a "concentration camp" even after all of that. No-other country in the region is willing to lift a finger to help them, yet you expect the most from the country which Gaza has sworn to destroy and attacks at every opportunity?

From their perspective, someone just moved into their house one day and when they objected they said "let's compromise, you can keep half of the house." No wonder they rejected that compromise.

Unfortunately we're now a couple of generations past that initial event so it's a lot more complicated at this point.

Just an addendum, the partition is based on the previous split of Transjordan Palestine after ww1, where there was a 80/20 split for the Arabs. With the Israeli getting most of Palestine.

Palestinians are not saying to expel Jews. They are saying to remove the ethnoreligious state, not the Jews themselves.

This was reiterated countless of times. They seek a Democratic state where Jews and non jews can be equal.

Of course, the issue is the Israeli state, not the Jewish people. There are even organizations in Israel fighting for Palestinian rights and against the Israeli state (and many get punished for it).

But unfortunately there are also many who support what is being done to Palestinians. But in the end, the Israeli state and military are the main entities to blame.

Negotiate? They straight up support terrorists or conduct business with them for 'the greater good' or 'the big picture'.

The terrorists in that case managed to outlast a billion/trillion $ anti-terrorism budget, I don't think the US had much negotiating power or a choice to not negotiate in that case. Ironic considering how many times that it's been the other way around.

I mean, I guess you can try, but you're going to be dissapointed every single time. 10/10 don't recommend.