Asklemmy

I think the main success of the current narrative on Palestine is disguising Israeli expansion as Israeli self-defense. Here’s a map of the UN partition plan for Palestine and you can check today’s borders to see how much land Palestine has ceded to Israel, unwillingly of course. Israel was created as a result of the Palestine Civil War and have been expanding ever since. That was the plan the whole time, as it says in the above linked page:

Arabs rejected that partition plan and waged war after war against Israel. Land changed hands both ways in the late 1940s—the great sin of Israel is that it won more land than it lost, that's what the Arabs can't forgive them for. The Arabs started the war thinking they could beat the Jews and expel them altogether.

Some of the land taken in 1967 is up for debate, but regions like the Golan Heights have a large strategic value and have historically been used to attack Israel. Israel happily returned Sinai to Egypt for peace. I'm generally opposed to settlement expansion, but that's almost never framed as self-defense. And the current war in Gaza is really not expansionist.

I don’t see how Palestine is any different from Ukraine in terms of needing to cede land to the invader in exchange for peace. What do you think? I’m sure there’s a lot I’m not aware of.

I'm assuming you're talking about the Olmert proposal or similar, since land isn't really a big part of the Gaza debate, Israel wants the hostages back and Hamas gone.

Peace is the concession being made by Palestine, not for Palestine. many Palestinians are strongly opposed to peace with Israel. Hamas is categorically opposed. Palestinians want an end to the occupation, control of East Jerusalem, as much land as they can get, and a totally unrealistic "right of return" that would realistically end Israel.

The deal in question included East Jerusalem, removal of Israeli settlers from the west bank, an end to the occupation, acceptance of a number of Palestinian immigrants into Israel, and was just a starting point.

The land swaps—not a one-sided cession, swaps—are designed around areas that are already mostly Israeli settlers. Practically, moving multiple townfulls' worth of settlers is really unrealistic. Israel removed 80,000 settlers from Gaza unilaterally during 2005, and is willing to remove more but removing hundreds of thousands, especially from towns that are already mostly Israeli, is an extreme challenge and land swaps are a practical way to get around it.

About the negotiations and truce offered to Israel:

Lol, I assumed you were talking about a peace deal. Hamas was really open about this one: permanent concessions (there was more to it than just the land), in exchange for a temporary truce that was just a strategic aim on their part to shore up resources so they could more effectively massacre all of Israel when the truce had ended. And there's no way they'd be able to keep the truce going for as long as they said, they couldn't even handle the days-long truce in the current war.

but there was justification, I believe it was NATO encroachment or something about Nazis in Ukraine.

Lol, Ukraine never joined NATO, even after the Donbas invasion, Ukraine was literally run by a Jew, and the Russians have turned the Azov battalion into heroes. And none of that would have been grounds for war, if it made any sense to begin with.

the justification for Israel invading Palestine in the first place was “we are God’s chosen people and we want this land”

... what the fuck are you talking about? Are you attempting to describe the Israeli War of Independence? Or something else? I'm so confused.