Israel is justified in attacking Gaza

Your argument boils down to the following points 1) Israel broke the ceasefire, not Hamas, and therefore Hamas was justified in launching the Qassam barrage after the official end of the ceasefire. 2) The damage done to the Palestinians is disproportionate 3) The actions of Israel will further danger their civilians and not protect them 4) Israel is pursuing this course since they seek a "return" to "Greater Israel" All of these statements are demonstrably false. 1) Sequence of events. On June 24th 2008 Israel killed two members of Islamic Jihad in the West Bank. Islamic Jihad a) rejected the ceasefire explicitly and b) were in the West Bank where the terms of the ceasefire did not apply. This was NOT a violation of the ceasefire. After this raid, mortar shells were fired from Gaza into Israel followed by Qassam rockets. There was no immediate claim of responsibility. Afterward Islamic Jihad came forward and claimed responsibility. Even if you believe it wasn't actually Hamas that did the firing, Islamic Jihad is obtaining their rockets from Hamas http://www.haaretz.com... violating the ceasefire. Following this attack Israel tightened the blockade over Gaza. During the next 5 months 20 Qassams and 19 mortars were fired into Israel in violation of the ceasefire. On November 4th Israel spied Hamas attempting to build a tunnel to a location outside of Gaza to be used in order to kidnap Israeli Soldiers in the same manner Gilad Schalit was captured, in violation of the ceasefire. Israel went in to destroy the tunnel. During the operation 1 Hamas member was killed and 4 israeli soldiers were wounded. Afterward Hamas launched mortars at the Israeli base and Israel returned fire to the launch location killing 4 more Hamas members. Hamas then launched 203 Qassam rockets at southern Israel violating the ceasefire. Then after the ceasefire ended Israel did not as you claim "refuse Hamas' last attempt at extending the cease-fire (4 days after it had expired)" but, without any provocation, Hamas launched a torrential downpour of Qassams onto Israel. And let us not forget that the Qassams greatly increased after Israel withdrew from Gaza and the blockade was only put in place after the withdrawl and after the Qassams continued. I.e. there was a point in which there was no blockade, and no Israeli presence in Gaza, yet Hamas still fired Qassams. Hamas has stated that they intend to destroy all of Israel. That is their own words. The blame for the ceasefire violation falls squarely on Hamas. The blame for the current offensive falls squarely on Hamas. 2) In your example of a serial killer attempting to pick off your family you stated that in your attempt to kill this serial killer, the total number of civilian casualties you would allow would need to be less than the total number of people the serial killer intends to kill. There are two points in which we disagree. First is Hamas intent to kill versus their ability to achieve kills, and the second is whether future intent can be a factor. Hamas, in their own words, intends to destroy all of Israel and kill its inhabitants. At its broadest definition since Hamas intends and desires to kill 6 million Israeli citizens, I suppose collateral damage of Palestinians would be set at 6 million minus 1. But even if you want to ignore future intention (which I don't believe you do since I assume there are members of your family still alive) and focus squarely on current intent of Hamas, the number would still be higher. Every Qassam is launched with the intent of killing Israeli civilians. Hamas does not target the numerous military bases within the Qassam's range, but rather ACTIVELY chooses civilian population centers. Let us assume on average a Qassam has the potential to kill 2-3 people. Obviously if a Qassam hit a crowded group or destroyed a home with numerous people in it the numbers would be higher, but 2-3 is a valid hope. Almost 9000 Qassams have been launched all with the intent to kill. Given current capabilities, that would place our new number for Collateral damage at 18,000 to 27,000 minus 1. It is somewhat sickening to think that Israel would have to hold themselves back from attacking Hamas completely b/c they have created early warning systems and force Hamas to fire Qassams hastily with poor targeting. If only Israel told it's residents to not seek shelter and not bother the rocket shooters that Israel could afford more "collateral damage." sick. In your example of a serial killer, if he currently is using a bow and arrow with limited success at killing your family members, must you wait until he has acquired a sniper gun before you use your full force to stop him? The Qassam danger is real, and Hamas' intent is both shocking and worthy of severe retribution. 3) I believe the ceasefire announcement is a positive step that will hopefully lead to an extended period of quiet which will allow Gaza to prosper without a blockade. And hopefully at that stage Gazans will not let Hamas fire any more rockets out of the understanding that it accomplishes nothing and only brings misery. Gaza is certainly not an unviable state. The settlers there created tremendous greenhouses (which were destroyed by Hamas) which accounted for up to 60% of the produce of certain vegetables grown in all of Israel. It is relatively prosperous (even under a blockade) when compared to other impoverished nations such as Haiti. It receives billions in international aid. Imagine if the tremendous amounts of money used to acquire weaponry had instead been used to build Gaza's economic infrastructure, the idea of an unviable state would be laughable. Only future results will resolve this point in our dispute, but so far I believe things look positive. 4) It seems that in your attempt to understand why Israel would logically attack Gaza or any of the actions you describe "Israel continued to break cease-fires, continued to occupy Palestine, continued to annex territory, et al." you have come to the conclusion that, in reality Israel is seeking to claim "Greater Israel" punishing the Palestinian people no matter the cost. I could tell you that after the 67 war ended Israel immediately offered all land acquired for state recognition, an offer that was declined, or that Israel has allowed total Muslim control over the Temple Mount, Israel's holiest site since then, or that Israel did make peace with Egypt in 79 giving back a huge chunk of valuable land in exchange for simple "recognition" (Israel also wanted Egypt to take Gaza. They declined), or that Israel did begin Oslo with the stated purpose of giving the Palestinians their own state (The first country in History to attempt to grant Palestinians the right of self determination is Israel) in exchange for the outlandish request of "stop bombing us," Or that in 2000 Israel did offer the Palestinians their own State (imagine, this could have been over; there could now be a Palestinian State!), or that Israel did expel its own residents from Gaza ceding not just the towns they lived in but the extremely valuable economic component. At the very least, wouldn't you agree that this does not fit your perception of a country hell bent on acquiring "Greater Israel," but perhaps more like a country that simply wants to live quietly with the knowledge that its neighbors do not want it destroyed? And as for the Palestinians, why does it seem like every major advance made by the Israelis towards a peaceful resolution is met with greater resistance. After Oslo, suicide bombings greatly increased from their previous pace during the first intifada. Israel's offer of Palestinian statehood in 2000 was met with the second intifada. Israel's retreat from Gaza was met by a tremendous increase in the use of Qassam rockets. Is it any surprise that more and more Israelis are turning away from the peace process?