When did the Palestinians lose the war?

It's hard to win with small arms against modern tanks, jet fighters, and helicopter gun ships all while under occupation.

...the desire to have a Palestine that doesn't include Israel on the map.

They accepted the reality of Israel stated that a return to the 1967 borders would bring peace. There is Hamas, which still clings to the no Israel mantra (but I'll bet even they don't believe that nonsense anymore). Anyway, the PLO was firmly in charge during the time in question by the original post.

Israel, rightly or wrongly, wants to hold on to land gained in 1967 as well as maintain control over water distribution. The cost to them will be continued fighting.

Without the US bankrolling the operation, Israel would have to come to a modus vivendi with the Palestinians. That would necessitate a return to the 1967 borders--with a few land swaps to account for population bulges and co-capitals in Jerusalem. Israel could not force a Palestinian state that looked like a Swiss cheese and was at Israels' mercy over water and transportation.

"Fatah and the PLO gave up that idea long ago." The administrative parts did do away with the destruction of Israel 'thing.' However, their militant groups have not and the current version of the administrative branch has done next to nothing to curb their ("militants") terrorism.

As you say, "(then) There is Hamas,is Hamas, which still clings to the no Israel mantra (but I'll bet even they don't believe that nonsense anymore)." First, they do still cling to that notion, so you'd lose that bet. Second, they are now in power and still wish to see the destruction of Israel, so what is Israel to do? Give up the land and wait another few years for yet another war?

"Israel, rightly or wrongly, wants to hold on to land gained in 1967 as well as maintain control over water distribution. The cost to them will be continued fighting." Again, this is close. There are some water issues, but the main issue is defensible borders, without them, they will surely be attacked again, and then she ends up in the position she is in now. There is also the issue of holy sites, which under Arab control, Jews were not allowed to visit.

Without the US money, Israel would have found the means in others ways, and barring that, they would respond even more violently than they are now. There is a reason Jews say "Never Again!" and mean it!

As for looking like Swiss cheese, because of the configuration, the new Arab state was always going to look like that, as was the new Jewish state. However, they (the Arab leaders) did not want a Jewish state, and here we are.

Hamas says "no Israel" as a political slogan, but they know it's not a reality. It gets votes. Same thing the clown in Iran does. They know Israel isn't going anywhere.

The "defensible" borders is Israeli propaganda and an excuse to grab the land. The Israelis did a good enough job defending themselves in 1967. Now they are stronger militarily and their would be opponents much weaker. The 1967 borders are defensible in any conventional warfare. If you are talking strategic warfare, well, no borders are too defensible against a hail of long range missiles. The fact is, other than possibly Iran, Israel faces NO serious conventional threat. Even Iran is more of a paper tiger than anything else. Who is going to beat the IDF in battle? Syria? Egypt? Lebanon? Jordan? Please, I can't stop laughing at that.

There is no reason a Palestinian state has to resemble a Swiss cheese except the Israeli desire to occupy large slices of the West Bank.

...borders on flat out wrong!

"Hamas says "no Israel" as a political slogan, but they know it's not a reality." You have personal knowledge of this? I am guessing you don't, therefore it is an opinion. The fact is that Hamas does use that slogan, and by their rhetoric, absolutely believe in it!

You say: "The "defensible" borders is Israeli propaganda and an excuse to grab the land." Interesting, as the UN disagrees with you. It is also why the Golan is still occupied. It doesn't matter how well Israel has done in the past, what matters is preventing further incursions. As for the other armies, Egypt and Jordan have treaties with Israel and are not likely to break. But, if the Arab nations could ever stop fighting with one another, then Israel could indeed be in trouble. While they might not be conquered and "pushed into the sea" another war could devastate Israel. Do you also find that as humorous? I would hope not.

There is no way for Palestine to not looks like Swiss Cheese, as there is no way to connect Gaza and the WB without slicing up Israel, and somehow, I don't see that happening.

forget about 1973?....had those borders Not been there, israel would have had large parts of it over run

The aims of Syria and Egypt in 1973 was never to overrun Israel (note: in saying Israel, I'm referring to Israel proper and not the West Bank, Gaza, or the Golan Heights).

From the Iron Wall (p319)

The Arab aim in launching the war was to break the political deadlock and to provoke an international crisis that would force the superpowers to intervene and put pressure on Israel to withdraw from the territories it had captured in June 1967. Egypt's aim was to cross the Suez Canal in force and entrench itself on the east bank of the canal before diplomatic negotiations began. Syria's aim was to recapture parts of the Golan Heights and to destroy some of the Israeli forces there. Both Egypt and Syria had limited war aims. They had no illusion that they could defeat Israel or dislodge it from all the territories it had captured in 1967. Their aim was primarily political. They followed Clausewitz's dictum that war is the continuation of policy by other means.

the subject was strategic depth....with the golan and the sinia, the syrian and egyptian forces would have rolled up israeli territory, just as the did in their initial surprise


and they stoppped not because of politics but because of israeli armor....otherwise they would have kept on going....

(The Syrian tank forced stopped on the golan after receiving limited resistance....the commander just knew it was too easy and sensed a trap further on....in fact there was none. Had he had known that, he would have kept on going....)

but words mean something, and you can't control how people listening are going to interpret them. If people take them at face value, that's the fault of those speaking. And, of course, as was pointed out to you, you can't possibly know whether Hamas means what it says or not, anymore than you can know how those words are received.

The uprising came about purely out of desperation. I doubt anyone in their right mind expected or expects that rocks and stones, small arms, and even suicide bombings are any match for a formidable military force intent on continuing an occupation...

but as the OP points out, they might have been able to win politically - if they hadn't blew it (literally). Among other things, they managed to almost completely demolish the credebility of their supporters on the Israeli side.

and whats left of it is far more central, with far less sympathy