And no, I won't go back to King David and the Romans. The current conflict between Palestinians and Israel can be traced back to right after WW2. That's were the interesting events start. Going back further is not helpful.
From Wikipedia:
> An 84-delegate international observer delegation monitored the elections. It judged the elections to have been peaceful and well-administered.[33] Twenty-seven members of the European parliament were included. Edward McMillan-Scott, the British Conservative head of the European Parliament's monitoring team described the polls as "extremely professional, in line with international standards, free, transparent and without violence".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_e...
So a very large team of international observer agreed that this election was fair and the results accurate. Why do you claim it wasn’t?
> Thats way too late. You better start at Arab colonization of the region in 17-19th century
You are talking about the Ottoman Turks (not Arabs) who ruled Palestine between 1516 and 1914 (with some pauses in the 19th century).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine#Ottoman_p...
I think your anti-Arab sentiments are showing.
Because Hamas have physically killed all major opposition politicians prior to these elections.
> You are talking about the Ottoman Turks (not Arabs) who ruled Palestine between 1516 and 1914 (with some pauses in the 19th century).
No, I'm not. You clearly don't understand what Ottoman "rule" over this territory looked like, and using your intuition from modern nation states to inform you — which is incorrect. Ottomans have indeed had conquered this territory, but their de facto presence was almost non-existent, especially outside a couple of major cities. They even didn't bother to install any significant judicial system or common law — instead, every community was responsible for handling it's own affairs, which is the system that persists in modern Israel to present day.
> Because Hamas have physically killed all major opposition politicians prior to these elections.
The Palestinian Civil War (aka the Battle for Gaza) was after this election. The onset was much more complex then “Hamas killed all opposition”. But even if it was, this civil war had no effect on the election because it happened after it. If you are not referring the the civil war, which instances of political violence are you referring to? The dozens of international observers observing the election certainly didn’t see any? Were they all wrong? Is there some conspiracy we don’t know about?
Calling what happened in 2006 “an election” is not a good idea.
> - Hamas support was not strong, based in the few pols done, it increased after Israels attack
I don't think that Israel's response to an unprecedented terror attack and rocket barrages targeting civilians should be called “an attack” either.
> Start way back so, in 50s, to get the necessary context. I don't have everything in my head, and reading up yourself is way faster than me retyping a summary.
Thats way too late. You better start at Arab colonization of the region in 17-19th century (a different colonization from the initial Arab conquest in the 7-8th centuries).
> Israel not leveling Gaza would have a great option.
Are there any other options left for Israel in this situation? I mean, technically it could also just allow its citizens to continue being murdered by terror attacks and rockets. Do you think this would be a better option?