[Government Sanctioned Theft] IDF agrees to expansion of West Bank settlement

Do you have ANY evidence that the 2006 election was rigged?

Hamas falls in line according to the Israeli government's instructions? Did the Israeli government tell them to launch rockets at Israel? Did the Israeli government tell them to have suicide bombers blow up cafes and buses? Do you think at all about the preposterous claims you make?

Actually it is a perfect example, because it was used in exactly the same way by the US that Palestinian terrorist attacks are used by Israel, to maintain support for military action. Without some motivating factor like that, it is very tough to get the people behind decade long military campaigns.

None of those events are evidence that the elections were not free and fair. A free and fair election still has a winner and a loser. The supporters of the loser do not always just go along with the will of the people. In this case, the Fatah supporters did not go along with the Hamas victory. The US got involved AFTER the election to try and take down Hamas because Hamas is a terrorist organization. One party offering more perks to the common people is not unusual. In America we call them Democrats.

When Hamas attacks it IS a Palestinian attack. When Israel negotiates with Fatah, it is negotiating with representatives of all Palestinians. These are not really distortions. At worst they are examples of imprecise language.

I didn't say they don't want peace. I said peace is less important to them than the terms of the peace. The same is true of Israel. If peace was paramount to either side, then they could have peace immediately by just caving to the other side's demands. The problem for the Palestinians is they are in a much worse negotiating position, so they can't realistically expect to have a final peace that is closer to their terms than the Israeli terms. Israel can be quite satisfied by maintaining the status quo, so they have no need to make concessions in return for a peace agreement.

You for some reason are under the impression that Hamas is not representative of the Palestinian people. They are. In 2006 they received more of the vote of the entire Palestinian people (West Bank and Gaza) than any other party. It is not a default. It is not an inability to find someone else. Hamas talks a big game about taking down Israel and that appeals to a big portion of the Palestinian population. It is in poll after poll.

People act irrationally all of the time.

I think the end result will be a West Bank without settlements, because the settlements will end up being annexed to Israel. Gaza has a long way to go to get to the standard of living in the West Bank.

Eh, I am not a fan of eminent domain generally, but I recognize it as a necessary evil.

In America, to become a citizen, you are required to swear an oath to a secular government (though paradoxically include God in the oath):
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
Such a pledge requirement for citizenship is hardly as outrageous as you seem to think it is.

What are you hoping happens in the next 10-15 years that would make conforming to Israeli law no longer an option?

I don't know where you come up with these things. The political parties are not choosing people. There isn't a draft of all Palestinians and Hamas got first pick or something. There are choices available, and the people who vote pick one of them.

The only portions of my post which could reasonably be read as an attempt to deride Palestinians are the ones that are pure fact (ie terrorism is much more common among Palestinians than is seen in other populations).

Or we can just use an objective test to determine if something is a terrorist attack. Something along the lines of, "Did the attacker intentionally target civilians?" or, "Did the attacker hide among the civilian population while or immediately after launching their attack?"

So because Israel had terrorists 60+ years ago, it is OK to use terrorist attacks against them now? The US committed a genocide about 200 years ago, can any other country come and wipe out everyone in America without argument? Germany did the same 70 years ago, is it OK to march Germans off to death camps? Hell, in Rwanda there was a genocide much more recently, would it be OK with you if the Tutsi started slaughtering Hutu tomorrow?

 

Wrong but necessary for governments to not be held hostage by holdouts when they are undertaking critical programs. In Israel, it is establishing the eventual border. In other cases it can be building a road or a base or an airport. Because I value property rights very highly, I think it is wrong. On the other hand, I can understand that the shockingly high price that could be extracted without eminent domain is only created by the program it is serving in the first place. If there were some way to secretly purchase all of the required property so that information about why it was being purchased would not drive up the price, then I would say eminent domain should be abolished everywhere immediately. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

As for the loyalty oath, it is exactly like America's. The only difference is that Israel was created as a Jewish state while America was created as a secular state. Both oaths are to be loyal to the state and to uphold it's laws.