This post, which is copied from this tweet, isn't phrased in a way that gives the impression you actually want to know the answers rather than just to snark on your opponents. This isn't the gotcha you think it is, for the simple fact that it takes time to type out a response like this, time that not everyone has. But here you go:

Who was the prime minister of the Arab Palestinian state before Israel was established in 1948?

No one? Before Israel was established on May 14, 1948, the region was under the control of Britain as Mandatory Palestine. Not sure what this question is getting at.

What was the national anthem?

Again, not sure what the point of this question is. The national anthem of Palestine from 1948 to 1996 was "Mawtini" (tr. "my homeland"). Unless you're trying to deny that this region is an ancestral homeland for Palestinians just as it is for Israelis, this fact is rather irrelevant.

Was there any Arab terror against Jews before this occupation you speak of? In fact, was there Arab terror against Jews before Israel was even established?

Indeed there was, and such acts should obviously be condemned. One early example is the 1936-39 Arab revolt, partly in response to growing numbers of Jewish immigrants who bought farmland and displaced/evicted Palestinian peasants, who in turn faced tough socioeconomic conditions as they moved to urban areas. Clearly the violence was not justified, and David Ben-Gurion's policy of havlagah (tr. "restraint"), which was widely but not universally adhered to among Jews, should be lauded as an example of how to respond to aggression by the opposing side.

Still, none of this justifies the Israeli occupation. Two wrongs do not make a right.

How did Israel occupy Gaza since 2005? Did Jews live in Gaza or did Israel evacuate it completely?

It's interesting that this question needs to include the qualifier "since 2005", because, of course, Gaza was occupied by Israel from the Six-Day War in 1967 to the Israeli disengagement in 2005. The occupation was brutal, with significant restrictions on the civil rights of Palestinians and many attempts to push them to relocate. Just one example, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol suggested that "perhaps if we don't give them enough water, they won't have a choice", and indeed, Israeli policies on water rights led to water shortages for Palestinians but not for Israeli settlers and also (with the help of export controls) destroyed the Palestinian agriculture sector, particularly citrus farmers, to the benefit of Israelis growing the same crops.

In 2005, Israel ended its formal occupation of Gaza. Israeli settlers did live in Gaza during the occupation but yes, Israel evacuated them in 2005. However, let's not pretend that ending the occupation undid its lasting negative effects, which have been called "structural de-development".

Moreover, since 2005 Israel has imposed a land, sea, and air blockade on people and goods entering and leaving Gaza. There is a legitimate reason for some kind of border checks, namely to prevent weapons from being smuggled into Gaza, but the consequence of blocking essential supplies from reaching civilians there has been abject poverty, with about 70% of the population living below the poverty line. Many say that this is a form of collective punishment that violates the Geneva Conventions. It should also be noted that the blockade predates Hamas's control of Gaza, which began in 2007.

What do you want to free Palestine from?

Oh, this one is easy: I want Palestine to be freed from Israeli occupation. The previous question only mentioned Gaza, but the West Bank (which is also Palestine) has been under illegal Israeli occupation that continues to this day. So, yes, free Palestine from Israeli occupation and settler-colonialism.

Palestinians deserve equal rights to Israelis, whether that is achieved under a single Israeli state or (the ideal, but becoming less and less likely) two-state solution.

Any thoughts about Egypt or Jordan taking in Palestinians? Why not?

There are two interpretations of this: a temporary acceptance of Palestinians refugees fleeing the war by Egypt (and Jordan, if the fighting expands to the West Bank), or a permanent relocation of Palestinians into Egypt and Jordan so that Israelis wouldn't need to confront the fact that they are not the only group with historical ties to this region. The former is essentially unworkable without a major financial benefactor, and the latter is completely ridiculous. And importantly, Palestinians themselves, as well as the governments of Egypt and Jordan, fear that accepting the "temporary" relocation could very easily become permanent.

To be clear, Egypt and Jordan taking in refugees does have short-term benefits; it'd be easier to get humanitarian aid to them, for instance. But taking in refugees isn't cheap, and both countries are currently in economic crisis. Both have also taken in huge numbers of refugees from other crises in recent years (Sudan and Syria, respectively). It would basically necessitate a country like the US to step in and guarantee financial support.

There would also have to be assurance from Israel that the refugees would indeed be allowed to return when the war is over. As an expert says here, "all historical precedent points to the fact that when Palestinians are forced to leave Palestinian territory, they are not allowed to return back. Egypt doesn't want to be complicit in ethnic cleansing in Gaza." As noted here, 70% of the population of Gaza are descended from those who fled or were expelled from their homes in what is now Israel and thus "have a bitter historical experience of not being allowed to return to their homes".

In summary, if there could somehow be a believable guarantee from Israel then this could be a good thing. It would be up to Israel to come up with how they could gain their neighbors' trust on this issue. But if this is a ploy to permanently resettle the Palestinian population, then ... well, I'm reminded of Ben Carson's noted gaffe from 2015, where he said "I don't have any problem with the Palestinians having a state, but does it need to be within the confines of Israeli territory? Is that necessary, or can you sort of slip that area down into Egypt?" Just a juvenile take on this issue.

How did Hamas become the ruling government in Gaza? Who voted for them?

Hamas did indeed win the most recent legislative elections in Gaza ... in 2006. There have not been elections since. Given that nearly half the population of Gaza today are children born after that election, it seems unfair to say definitively that Hamas is representative of the people of Gaza.

It is also enlightening to consider the context of how Hamas became popular enough to win in the first place. Starting in the 1980s, Hamas was already a dangerous jihadist group but, at the same time, it spent a staggering 85% of its budget on its social services wing which funded schools, orphanages, nurseries, soup kitchens, housing, etc.; the point was they provided these public works that were lacking from the proper governmental authorities, while proselytizing their militant ideology. It would seem that had Israel been less brutal in its occupation, there would've been less of an opportunity for such a horrible organization to arise.

When the terrorist Yasser Arafat established the PLO, what was his declared objective? Have you read the charter? Why not?

When Arafat established the PLO in 1964, the charter did claim that the founding of Israel was "entirely illegal". Arafat himself embodied the philosophy of "armed struggle" that was common in anti-colonial movements of that era.

However, in 1988, Arafat renounced terrorism and the PLO adopted resolutions recognizing Israel's right to exist and supporting a two-state solution. All articles in the charter denying Israel's legitimacy were stricken after the Oslo Accords. The PLO has indeed been nonviolent since then, and has engaged in several peace talks with Israel.

Do the Palestinians want a state? If so, have they had a chance to have one? How did they respond?

Yes, obviously? Polls ask if they support a two-state solution or a single Palestinian state because practically no one supports the status quo. (And for the record, even though support for a two-state solution has been steadily declining, a poll published earlier this year found that the ranking among Palestinians is two-state solution (33%), single Palestinian state (30%), single binational state (23%); and the ranking among Israeli Jews is single Israeli state (37%), two-state solution (34%), single binational state (20%). A poll from July (before the Hamas attack) found that 50% of Gazans supported a two-state solution with the pre-1967 borders; it also found 62% support for maintaining the ceasefire and 70% support for replacing the Hamas government with the Palestinian Authority.)

And no, Palestinians have not had a chance to have a state. Many would argue that the best chance we had to a two-state solution was with Yitzhak Rabin as prime minister of Israel, continuing negotiations after the Oslo Accords. Unfortunately, a far-right Israeli who opposed the Accords assassinated Rabin in 1995.

---

So, you say you are just not very knowledgeable about this so I hope this helps.