No, it isn't. It's only an impossibility as long as Israel remains in control.
It was an impossibility in the region for decades before Israel was established, and it's been an impossibility in the entire region.
If one person steals the land of someone else, "settles" it, then in the process of making right that harm and returning the land back the party that settled the land would have to move. Do you disagree? Is this "ethnic cleansing" or is it returning land to its rightful owner?
You do realize that I could use this exact question to propose that all Arabs should move back to their historic homeland, right? That it's the kind of question that could be used to justify expelling all Palestinians?
To answer your question, no, I don't agree to your proposition. A proposition that, even if entirely in self-interest, I'd have to disagree with, since you'd have to move from America, and I'd have to move from Australia, even if I'm a first generation Aussie (don't know how long your family has been in the US, but it's beside the point). If you want to return this particular piece of land to its historic owners, then those owners are the Jews - they pre-date the Arabization of the region (said process being part of their dispersal), and the archeological, genetic, and cultrual records are clear. So on one hand, the Jews have constantly lived in the area, despite waves of invasions and in the case of the Arabs, 'settling' it. I just don't think that should give them sole ownership over historic Judaea. On the other hand, that the Arabs won the region by conquest doesn't mean they get to obliterate the indigenous populations.
As I've said, ideally, the land could be shared. It hasn't been. Not in Israel, not anywhere since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and even then, if you weren't Muslim, you were relegated to second-class status ("dhimis," or whatever the term was). Hence why a two-state solution was even necessary.
You haven't explained why you think it is necessary, not even close-- unless your reasoning is normally extremely flimsy and this is just the best you can do.
I've explained countless times. If you lack the reading comprehension, that's on you.
You could try explaining why an Islamic state under Hamas would operate differently from every Islamic state in the region.
You've only asserted why you think it would happen based on a shallow and outdated reading of Hamas's goals.
Unless Hamas's goals have changed since their last charter (2017), I don't see how it's outdated.
Hamas's goal is explicit: a single Islamic state. That hasn't ended well for any non-Muslim group in the Islamic world, especially since the 20th century (and even further back), and certainly not the Jews. It hasn't ended well for non-Muslims under Hamas either - how do you think Christians are doing in Gaza these days?
This is also giving Hamas the benefit of the doubt, which is doubt that is dubious.
Whatever its charter says, Hamas are elected representatives of the Palestinian people and derive their power from being such, and there is no particular reason to think that the Palestinian people must share the desire for an Islamic state, especially not one of the particular character you describe.
The Germans elected Hitler as well.
That aside, yes, the Palestinians voted for Hamas. They're entitled to vote for Hamas. Perhaps some of them are doing so under the basis of wanting Hamas but not agreeing with its goals. But the facts are clear:
1: Hamas wants a single Islamic state that covers all of Mandate Palestine, with Jerusalem as its capital.
2: Every single Islamic state in the region has ethnically cleansed its country of Jews, and life is bad for non-Muslims in every single case.
3: That has remained the case under Hamas in the Gaza Strip - the strip was emptied of Jews when Hamas took control (to stay would be a death sentence), and Christians have gone from 4200 from when Hamas tool control to several hundred, and the persecution continues, including, but not limited to, the death penalty for homosexuals, endorses honour killings, the use of human shields, throwing political opponents off rooftops, and desecrated Christians and Jewish holy sites.
If you want Hamas to rule over Palestine, that's your right. But at least be honest what that means, or if you think it means something else, what the historical record involves for Islamic states, much less Islamic terror groups. Anyone recall ISIS? Anyone recall what happened to non-Muslims (heck, even moderate Muslims) under their territory?
