Israel is justified in attacking gaza

"I.e. It is Israel's goal to stop Hamas from launching rockets at civilian population centers. To do so it must give Hamas a very good reason not to, which necessitates a disproportional response." No one said that Israel did not have the right to defend itself. However, you have to remember that the Palestinians are under illegal military occupation in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel imposed a blockade on the Gaza strip in 2006, and this is in itself an act of war, regardless of what Israel feels about Hamas. Hamas has launched these rockets as a response to not only the siege, which is again, an act of war, but the illegal military occupation that has sucked the lives of the Palestinians since 1967 and has been ruled illegal by not only the UN, but the ICJ in 2000, international law, and the articles of the 4th geneva convention. The rockets that Hamas launches are mostly homemade projectiles, rockets that do very little damage and MOST of the time, hit open areas, and are manuactured by hamas itself. Just because Israel has a right to defend itself, doesnt mean that Hamas and the Palestinians cannot. You are acting as if Hamas wants to launch these rockets just for fun, but in reality, this is not true. In every occupation, the oppressed always has the means and right to defend itself. Proof that israeli occupation is illegal: http://www.geocities.com... Now when you say Hamas needs to stop launching rockets at civilain population centers, you need to remember a few things. First, Hamas does not have launching mechanisms in these rockets that make them directly hit population centers. Hamas does not have the superior military caliber that israel has. These rockets are launched and can hit anywhere. Hamas is using all it can to resist the occupation. Rockets and guns are all it has to fight. It has no air force or anything of that sort. They are not directed AT civilian population centers. Second, only 21 civilians were killed during 2001-2009 as a result of these projectiles in comparison to 6,348 palestinian non-combatants (not including hamas-fatah fighting) killed by israeli forces so it is foolish to call this an "indiscriminate" attack on Israelis. Now, lets talk about "disproportional" response. It indeed, was disproportional because on the one hand, hamas was fighting with rockets and hand guns and did very little damage in comparison to israel, on the other hand, who owns some of the most technological equipment on earth, has an airforce which destroyed close to everything in gaza, including hospitals, schools, mosques, UN buildings and civilian homes and killed hundreds of innocent civilains. Hamas may have damaged homes and schools, but Israel OBLITERATED these things in gaza, knowing that civilians were packed inside of them. Israel killed more civilians than hamas men; half of the fatalities were women and children. This doesnt even take into account the male noncombatants, foreign reporters, and ambulance drivers that were also killed. Hamas managed to kill more israeli soldiers than civilians. The total death toll was 1300 (half=women and children) to 13 (10 of who were soldiers). Therefore, this is disproportional and indiscriminate. In war, you are supposed to kill more of the enemy than innocents. Israel did the opposite. By the way, although it was dispropotional, the onslaught did not stop hamas from launcihng the rockets, and in fact, during the war, hamas' rockets were increasing by the number and hit even farther places. This shows that no matter how hard israel hits, it will not destroy hamas or find a solution to its problems. The only choice israel has is to recognize that hamas was democratically elected by the palestinians, making it the legitimate government and armed forces of the palestinians. It was hamas, not fatah that won. Israel did not like that, so as a result, it imposed the siege, which brought the rocket fire as a response and allied with fatah, who was not chosen. The only thing israel can do is talk to hamas, and recognize its existence. Hamas has recognized the state of israel not only in its charter (calls for going back to 1967 borders) but in the Arab League document that is sitting in the Arab Summit with Hamas' signature calling for a two state solution to the conflict. "To do so it must give Hamas a very good reason not to, which necessitates a disproportional response." You have really contradicted yourself. You just explained that israel's force was NOT disproportionate and said that your opponents were wrong for saying that it was, when later you said that the hamas rocket fire needed the disproportionate response that was achieved in gaza by israel and acknowledged that this was israel's only solution. You need to take a look at that. Like I said before, this has not destroyed Hamas' capability. Diplomacy is the only way. "What do you think the Turkish response would be? I believe there response would aim to be harsh enough to discourage future attacks." Yes, but I dont think the Turks would indiscriminately bomb a densely populated area, hospitals, mosques, schools, refugee camps, civilians waving white flags, ambulances, and UN buildings full of civilians. I beleive the Turks would have gone more after the enemy, not the civilians. You see, this was Israel's tactic. It wanted to kill as many civilians as it can, so that when the war was over, palestinian pulbic opinon would turn against hamas, and that in the next election, it would lose. "I would further argue that the civilian death toll from Israel's attack on Gaza, when compared to similar operations by major armies against embedded guerrilla groups in civilian population centers, was considerably low." Yes, but that doesnt give a reason to justify the number of civilans killed. I can say the same thing about hamas and the number of israelis killed as a result of the rocket fire, and how only 21 israelis died from that in the last 8 years. 21 is a very small number, especially for a time period of 8 years and in comparison tothe civilian death tolls of other wars and events. That doesnt mean we can justify that. Now, dont just think about the gaza war; think about how many palestinians died as a result of the occupation and the siege. It is a lot. It is foolish to say that just because the civilain death toll was "considerably low" in comparison to previous events, we should just let that go. America, who has been responsible for killing more civilians than any other country, does not bomb schools, hospitals, refugee camps, and cetainly not UN buildings which are specifically used for sheltering civilians in a time such as the gaza war like Israel. Im sure the Turks dont either. The only way to prevent rocket attacks is to first lift the blockade in gaza. Now that I have established that the blockade is an act of war, hamas is justiified in launcihng the only weapons it has, which are homemade rockets. These rockets dont have built in mechanisms that go and directly target civilian areas. Hamas does not have the weapons it can use to hit army bases, military personell, etc. Israel did not leave gaza in 2006. It may have w/drawn its troops and the settlements, but it still controlled gaza's airspace, its coastal waterways, who could leave-enter gaza (borders), eletricity, and water usage. This is not leaving gaza.