Israel is justified in attacking Gaza

1) If you'll recall, I didn't cite the West Bank killings as violations of the cease-fire. They were carelessly provocative, but not technically violations (Israel had unilaterally refused to include the West Bank in the cease-fire). In fact, the cease-fire had already been broken, 2 days prior, when Israel had not loosened the blockade 30%. The subsequent tightening of the blockade was a tightening from 20% of normal commerce. 20% was, in fact, Israel's explicit intention. They banked on few people reading the text of the cease-fire, and evidently they were successful. As to the rockets, I criticize your use of American (Israel's financier and one of only 6 nations currently voting against http://www.un.org... and its predecessors) press, and you respond with Jewish Israeli (another of the 6) press? But again, I cannot force neutral media upon you; I'll simply point out that "[Israeli] security forces said" and "according to [Israeli] security forces" are as credible in this case as "Hamas said" and "according to Hamas". In the face of such contradictions, we ought look at the facts. First, the article you provide is from 2007 and therefore cannot be in reference to the 2008 truce. Second, Islamic Jihad (PIJ) had been firing rockets since before Hamas was even elected to government. Your favored press never disputed that: it wasn't at the time convenient to make PIJ appear a welfare case. Also uncontroversial is that Iran—a purported source of rockets—favored PIJ. Additionally, the Center for Near East Policy Research credits PIJ with having developed and improved upon their own distinct rocket (the Quds). Also uncontroversial is that Hamas and PIJ have battled each other since Hamas assumed power and, again, that Hamas made relevant arrests during the lull. It is not at all clear, on the other hand, what motive Hamas would have to sign a cease-fire only to break it 5 days later with rocket fire at 2% their previously and subsequently proven capacity. PIJ, as you say, didn't sign the cease-fire, and 2% is entirely consistent with the relative size and strength of Gaza's minor factions. The rockets hit only Sderot, a distance we know Hamas to have been able to exceed. And finally, the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center reasoned "the objective of the rocket and mortar shell fire is not only to protest so-called Israeli violations of the arrangement but to make Hamas aware of their [PIJ and Fatah's] reservations regarding the lull." Now I ask you: is it reasonable to suppose Hamas would have to make itself aware of anything? The cease-fire forbade neither side from preparing for a resumption of hostilities, and neither side failed to. Thus, it would be irrelevant if Israel's bare speculation—that the tunnels were for offensive purposes—were correct: the tunneling itself is no more an act of aggression than Israel importing and arming tanks and attack helicopters. At any rate, the cease-fire was broken on day 3, making all your talk of "violations" moot. Hamas' charter does call for a single Islamic state, which is no less appropriate than the current single Jewish state. But the relevant fact is the leadership of Hamas has joined the worldwide near-unanimity in advocating a two-state solution, which Israel (specifically the Left) theoretically supports but refuses to join the UN General Assembly in voting for. There is also a right wing in the Knesset, which alternates power with the Left and doesn't even pretend to favor Palestine's right to exist. Given that, Hamas' right wing (that which favors its own version of a single state) is taking a Churchillian approach to a rogue empire. You say there was a period of time before the blockade in which a Hamas-controlled Gaza was firing rockets into Israel, and yet you provide no evidence. In fact, the first of the rockets and mortars fired after Hamas took control occurred June 18th. Whether you believe it (there was only 1) was fired by Hamas or not, you must admit that June 18th is preceded by the beginning of the blockade. I read in the New York Times—a source you evidently approve of—that the blockade was "on the grounds that the Fatah forces had fled". Even what we call "the blockade" was preceded by a slightly less severe blockade that spanned from Hamas' election to their victory over the Israeli-sponsored coup attempt, all of which preceded June 18th. The blockade has succeeded in inciting the remaining Fatah to contribute to the rocket-fire; what else it has accomplished is unclear. Nor was there a time period of the relevant nature (one without Israeli occupation of Gazan shores and airspace). More importantly, the Fourth Geneva Convention makes no exception, neither on the basis of rockets or any other hostilities, to an occupying power's responsibilities to the civilian population, of which a blockade is the opposite. 2) "First is Hamas intent to kill versus their ability to achieve kills, and the second is whether future intent can be a factor." Future intent, if accompanied by not only theoretical ability but also expectation, is certainly a factor. But the idea that Hamas could be expected to kill "6 million Israeli citizens" is absurd. The idea that "on average a Qassam has the potential to kill 2-3 people" is irrelevant. (The average lightening bolt has the "potential" to kill plenty more, but that doesn't mean a lightening rod would be worth massacring civilians. The relevant fact is that the Qassam casualty rate is .4%, prior to the expected Qassam defense system). If there is an American neo-nazi who "intends" to annihilate Israel, and I drop an atomic bomb on his vicinity, I will rightfully be tried on many counts of murder, and rightfully be found guilty. One good reason is that our neo-nazi clearly cannot be EXPECTED to accumulate anywhere near the number of casualties I've DEFINITELY effected. When you say, "If only Israel told it's [sick (only because of the pun)] residents to not seek shelter and not bother the rocket shooters that Israel could afford more "collateral damage." sick." I can't help but wonder if "sick" refers to your own comment. What kind of state would want to increase its own civilian casualties for the sole reason of justifying an increase in another's? Presumably, the objective is to DECREASE civilian deaths, no? Obviously, if Israel were to take your advice, it would not be justified in "preventing" ANY deaths through slaughter that it could prevent more easily by other means. Incidentally, not even the hard-liners within Hamas wish to "kill all Israelis". If you were familiar with Islam, you would know that neither Judaism nor any of the Abrahamic traditions that predate Islam offend Islam. Israeli occupation of Palestine certainly offends Islam, not to mention international principles of justice, but that again is within the realm of Israeli choice. "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?" If his acquisition of a sniper rifle is bare speculation, then yes. If, even were he armed with the sniper rifle, my "full force" would entail killing many more innocent people then he could, yes. If he has a legitimate grievance to whose addressing I've preferred murder, yes.