Israel did not “put Hamas in power.” Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections. These were monitored by international observers, including the Carter Center, who confirmed the vote was largely fair: https://cartercenter.org/news/pr/palestine_013006.html. The idea that Israel created Hamas is a misrepresentation of historic tactical decisions in the 1980s, when Israel tolerated some Islamist activity as a counterweight to the PLO. That is not the same as “putting Hamas in power,” and certainly not a reason to ignore Hamas’s current actions.

As for land and citizenship, roughly 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab, including Muslims and Christians, with full voting rights. The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not Israeli citizens because they are governed by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas respectively, per the Oslo Accords. Israel cannot unilaterally give them citizenship without dismantling those agreements, which Palestinians also signed. See: https://ecf.org.il/issues/issue/153.

Calling the situation “colonialism” ignores the fact that both sides claim historic ties to the land and have engaged in multiple rounds of negotiations. That includes offers of statehood rejected by Palestinian leadership, notably in 2000 and 2008. See: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/magazine/28israel-t.html.

Security and morality are not mutually exclusive. Both sides deserve accountability and safety.

Arguing that “none of this is ok” overlooks the security context in which states operate. Israel is not conducting indiscriminate mass surveillance of its own citizens. It is monitoring communications in territories largely controlled by designated terrorist organisations such as Hamas (see: https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/terrorism-and-illici...). That is not equivalent to the NSA intercepting Americans’ domestic calls.

Even Snowden’s own disclosures differentiated between the problematic scope of domestic collection and the more accepted targeting of hostile foreign entities (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-reco...). You may oppose both, but equating them as equally unjustified weakens the argument.

Israel has experienced decades of terror attacks, rocket fire and armed conflict originating from Gaza and the West Bank. That fact matters. Countries routinely intercept communications from adversarial regions, whether it’s the NSA, GCHQ, or Shin Bet. Calling this “insane” suggests a disregard for the protective responsibilities of a state.

Link to that poll?

I think your confusion results from the fact that "Palestinians" was the name used to call the Jews basically for nearly two thousand years, until the early 20th century. And, yes, they have been ethnically cleansed by arabs basically since the arab invasion in the 7th century.

The arabs themselves never wanted to be called Palestinians - they used the name "Syrian Arabs". Yassir Arafat, former leader of the PLO, was one of the most prominent opponents of the word "Palestinians" with regard to the arab population - he only changed his mind as Jordan and Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel, because he wanted to distance himself from these "traitors".

One of the problems he (and also most arabs) had with the word "Palestina" - it has exactly ZERO relationship to arabs and to Arabic languages. It's a greek word with actually Hebrew roots. It means "land of the Philistines" - and the Philistines, according to many historians, are a mixed group of people, mostly from western Mediterranean (modern-day Italy, France, Spain, northern Africa), also called "the sea people", or, in other words - pirates. The Romans introduced this name to the region to wipe out the original names Judea and Samaria (which IS actually a sign of a genocide).