All of Palestine. From what I can see, their plan is basically to slowly chew bits and pieces off, settle them, and then use the conflict that results from that to chew more pieces off. Hamas is helping by causing further conflict to goad the Palestinians and other Muslims into supporting them, in order to gain power in the short term, and maybe they're hoping for a serious jihad in the long term? They don't make much sense.
All of palestine? then why israel gave back the gaza strip? and why would israel want to govern the palestinians?
lets assume that no matter what, palestines will remain peaceful. under their government or ours, doesn't matter.
Why would israel wish to have them under our government and force to pay welfare to such a large uneducated mass? the israeli arabs already takes 58% of our social security payments while providing ~5% of the taxes, so why would israel wish to extend it even further?
I am afraid that this narrative is "slightly" wrong. israel has nothing to do in the west bank/gaza, EXCEPT use it as a buffer to try and prevent terror attacks against israeli citizens.
Yes I am using UN figures. If you have a less biased source with hard numbers, by all means, share it.
The UN estimates 59% Palestinian mortal casualties as civilians, and 69% of Israeli mortal casualties as civilians. That's just simply not significantly far apart. I sympathize with your complaints about what they identify as a "civilian" but 1) I don't see clearly how this biases the data toward one side and not the other (perhaps you can clarify the reasoning there?), and 2) Again, what better numbers should we be using instead?
No, you are using Betzelem figures that the UN used. there were multiple studies that shown how betzelem determined which casualty is a civilian and which is not. in their defence, they claimed its extremely hard to determine civilians/combatives among the palestines.
1) Because it doesn't do that in regarding to israeli figures. in israel, every soldier is officially regarded as a military casualty, even if he died while on vacation.
2) Honestly, i don't have another source except ones that break apart Betzelem ones but that doesn't mean the UN source is accurate.
They both want control of what is currently Israeli soil (and more, beyond that, but most of all, that). The fact that Israel happens to have it at the moment is effectively a quirk of history that could almost as easily have gone the other way, thus their status as "defenders" seems fairly coincidental versus palestinians as "aggressors" and thus, consequently, "gaining something" from war versus peace is also equally coincidental.
If it had been the other way around, with external forces granting control of the land to palestinians, and israelis somehow being concentrated in a population right next door, then the preferences would be completely reversed, with palestinians "preferring peace" (i.e., the land) and israelis "preferring conflict" (in order to gain control of the land, also).
What they both prefer is the land -- whether peace or conflict leads to having the land is what they will desire, respectively, as a result, no matter the specifics.
Obviously israel wants to keep its land. that doesn't mean it is not allowed or justified to and it doesn't mean it aspire to extend what it has now on the expense of the palestines. on the contrary, israel have already shown it is more than willing to depart from land in exchange for peace. land that is bigger than entire israel.
And let me remind you that it was the surrounding arab countries and the palestines that initiated an attack on israel, despite getting the far more worthwhile lands in 1948 and the ability to completely divide the israeli state.