Zionism’s aims in Palestine, its deeply-held conviction that the Land of Israel belonged exclusively to the Jewish people as a whole, and the idea of Palestine’s “civilizational barrenness" or “emptiness” against the background of European imperialist ideologies all converged in the logical conclusion that the native population should make way for thenewcomers.

The idea that the Palestinian Arabs must find a place for themselves elsewhere was articulated early on. Indeed, the founder of the movement, Theodor Herzl, provided an early reference to transfer even before he formally outlined his theory of Zionist rebirth in his Judenstat.

An 1895 entry in his diary provides in embryonic form many of the elements that were to be demonstrated repeatedly in the Zionist quest for solutions to the “Arab problem ”-the idea of dealing with state governments over the heads of the indigenous population, Jewish acquisition of property that would be inalienable, “Hebrew Land" and “Hebrew Labor,” and the removal of the native population.

• Page 8, The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948

The Zionists were tireless in their efforts to shape the Commission’s proposals, meeting not only with the Com­ mission members themselves, but with statesmen, cabinet ministers, members of parliament, and senior officials at the Foreign and Colonial Office with whom the Commission members were likely to consult before formulating their recommendations.15 At these meetings the idea of a popu­lation transfer was promoted in conjunction with the parti­tion of the country, the partition idea apparently was first suggested by a member of the Commission itself. Professor Reginald Coupland, during a private meeting with Weizmann in Palestine. The prospect of official British recognition- hitherto steadfastly denied-of Jewish sovereignty and state­ hood, even in only part of Palestine, represented a tremen­ dous, and at that stage unhoped for, advance for the Zionist movement. Given the demographic realities at the time, whatever boundaries might be devised for partition would inevitably result in large numbers of Arabs and even greater expanses of Arab-owned land becoming part of whatever Jewish state would be carved out. Thus, the notion of transfer was a natural concommitant to the partition idea. Evidence sug­ gests that the proposal of Arab transfer that was ultimately made by the Royal Commission originated from, and had been secretly conveyed by, top Jewish Agency leaders, including Ben-Gurion, Shertok, and weizmann. As early as the Jewish Agency Executive meeting in October, Ben- Gurion had indicated his intention to raise the issue: “if the Peel Commission and the London government accept [the idea of transfer to Transjordan], we will remove the land problem from the agenda.’

• Page 55, The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948

• Simha Flapan - The Birth of Israel Myths and Realities

Morris asserted that the onset of the fighting between Israel and the Arab armies that entered the country on the day the British Mandate ended, May 15, 1948, was the main reason for what he called the “Birth of the Palestinian refugee problem.” I have argued that it was not the war itself, since half of those who became refugees—hundreds of thousands of Palestinians—had been expelled before it had even commenced. Moreover, I claimed that the war was initiated by Israel in order to secure the historical opportunity to expel the Palestinians.19 The idea that the Palestinians left voluntarily is not the only false assumption associated with the 1948 war. There are three others that are often aired to explain away the events of that year. The first is that the Palestinians are to be blamed for what happened to them since they rejected the UN partition plan of November 1947. This allegation ignores the colonialist nature of the Zionist movement. What is clear is that the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians can in no way be justified as a “punishment” for their rejecting a UN peace plan that was devised without any consultation with the Palestinians themselves.

• Ilan Pappe - Ten Myths About Israel - Ch 5

Hamas began twenty years into the occupation during the first Intifada, with the goal of ending the occupation. Collective punishment has been a deliberate Israeli tactic for decades with the Dahiya doctrine. Violence such as suicide bombings and rockets escalated in response to Israeli enforcement of the occupation and apartheid.

Hamas 1988 Charter and Revised 2017 Charter

The 1988 Charter, which is certainly unreasonable in its fundamentalism with Sharia Law and is antisemitic, does not call for the extermination of all Jewish People. Hamas wants an end to Israel as an Apartheid State, not an extermination of all Israelis. Under Ahmed Yassin in the 1990’s, truces were offered in exchange for Israeli to withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank to the 1967 borders. The 2017 Revised charter explicitly accepts a Two-State Solution of the 1967 Borders. Check Article 7 and 13 of the 1988 Charter to see yourself, compare it to Article 20 and 24-26 in the revised charter.

The slogan From the River to the Sea is about Palestinian liberation that started in the 60s by the PLO for a democratic secular state, not Genocide. The Syrian leader Hafez al-Assad in 1966 maybe, but he’s not Palestinian.

History of Hamas supported by Netanyahu since 2012