Israel is Justified in Attacking Hamas' Forces in the Gaza Strip.

I'm meant to show that Israel "kills more innocent people than Hamas". Israel makes it easier on me by the day, of course, so excuse the following figures if they're outdated. And I invite you, for your last argument, to provide counter-evidence as accompaniment for your denials. My main source is the UN. Yesterday's situation report said a minimum of 101 children has been killed in the current Israeli offensive, and the current estimate is 130 children out of a total 350 civilians, "civilians" being a bit of a misnomer in that it doesn't include any of the 138 massacred policemen. The Israeli civilian death toll remains steady at 3, which is less than the number killed by Israeli friendly fire: this, despite the fact that the invasion has not achieved its pretended goal of stopping the rockets. 2 Palestinians were killed accidentally by Hamas rockets, meant for Israel. No Gazan faction killed any Israelis during the (2008) cease-fire. Starting from Islamic Jihad's retributive rocket attacks, and continuing at their current rate, all Gazan forces would have to fire rockets for almost another 32 years in order to rack up a civilian death toll equal to what Israel has effected in the past couple weeks alone. If you prefer, we can compromise the present tense of "kills" in order to expand the sample period: Since the 2006 Israeli withdrawal, Israel has claimed the lives of a combined 450 Gazan civilians, as opposed to 11 Israelis killed in Gazan rocket and mortar attacks. At that rate, Gaza would have to fire rockets and mortars for about 45 years in order to equal the civilian death toll effected by 20 months of Kadima self-defense. And the pattern continues. Notice that I start the sample periods just after the ends of the major Israeli offensives, thus given full weight to "Hamas provocation". And never mind that Israel expects to have technology that will render Gazan rockets completely impotent—as opposed to virtually impotent, as they have been—by 2010. By "military action against its own citizens" I can only assume you're referring to the Battle for Gaza, in which 41 civilians were killed by the combined efforts Hamas and Fatah. This was nothing close to the proportion of civilian casualties in, for example, the American Civil War. And, unlike the American Civil War, Fatah was attempting not simply to secede, but to overthrow the legally elected party. Add the 41 to the 11, and we're still nowhere close to Israel. And let's be clear about what distinguishes "military action against one's citizens": that the actor has given the citizen citizenship. Israel being an apartheid state, its military action is something else. You say that Hamas is "blowing themselves up in marketplaces", but you know very well that Hamas' militant wing hasn't committed a suicide attack since it achieved its goal of Israeli withdrawal 4 years ago. Hamas, in its history, has in fact chosen both civilian and military targets. The current Israeli offensive exemplifies that Israel has done the same. The idea that Israeli market-goers are guilty by association seems to me about as feasible as the idea that Gazan policemen are guilty by association, particularly when the latter are denied--by Israel's siege--the option of leaving, and denied--by Israel's embargo--the viable option of turning down employment opportunity. Which act of terrorism we dislike the most is rather irrelevant, the same way it's irrelevant that one serial killer in a serial-killing competition includes babies among his targets. If we're morally responsible, we condemn both serial killers, recognizing that the killings of either one do nothing to discourage the killings of the other. Israel "become [sic] a state in it's [sic] current location about 60 years ago"? This is incorrect I'm afraid. The 1949 Armistice gave Israel neither the Gaza Strip, nor the West Bank, nor the Golan Heights, nor East Jerusalem. Those were all conquered decades later. And ever since that conquest, Israel has expanded Israel proper through the illegal encouragement of "settlement" of the occupied territories, which (if you'll consult a detailed map) was obviously done with the purpose of dividing the West Bank into little isolated bantustans (George H. W. Bush is the only president since Eisenhower to have seriously tried to stop general process). The United States did not complete American Indian Removal in less than 60 years, and Israel is no different. Even the wall so central to the current conflict, is an encroachment. "Those people" are not "gone": 60 years is less than a lifetime, and refugee camps are filled with the dispossessed and their children. Incidentally, it's a lie that the siege is "approved by UN". In fact, the UN has repeatedly condemned it. At un.org, it's just 6 keystrokes away. Perhaps you are mistaking the siege, like the occupation, for the establishment of Israel. "Israel can't be expected to endanger it's [sic] troops just to pander to the wants of Hamas"? I agree: Israel should stop the attacks altogether, thus pandering not only to Hamas but also the Gazan civilian population, the world at large, and (up until Israel invaded) Israel's population. That way, neither Israeli troops nor Gazan innocents would be endangered. Even if "attacking Hamas" is presumed, I would caution Israel not to "pander to the wants of Hamas" by continuing to kill innocents, thus enraging and radicalizing the Gazan population, thus consolidating support for groups like Hamas and worse. As per the request of evidence that a blockade is indeed an act of war: Encyclopedia Britannica—blockade--an act of war by which a belligerent prevents access to or departure from a defined part of the enemy's coasts. As per the request of evidence that the occupation is indeed illegal: http://domino.un.org... http://domino.un.org... The second UNSC resolution (1973) reaffirms the first (1967), which was satisfied neither "immediately" nor at all. Not the least of the trouble is that the Israeli government has since been divided between the Right (which is opposed altogether to Palestinian statehood) and the Left (which demands statehood be contingent on acceptance of gross annexations, among other conditions). The UNSC has since been explicit about such annexation (which happens to include the Arab portion of the Holy City), calling it "null and void" and "violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention". Finally we learn that "Israel held up their end of the deal until the cease-fire was broken". This must be a reference to the 3 non-lethal rockets fired by Islamic Jihad, occurring subsequent Israel's killing one top member of Islamic Jihad and possibly another (the second victim may have just been a student). That Hamas would sign a cease-fire only to endanger it (for the sake of three measly rockets) 5 days later is an absurd proposal. All the more absurd, when one reflects that rocket fire in the total period of the cease-fire turned out to be 2% its previous level, despite the fact that Israel early-on violated the cease-fire by intensifying (as opposed to relaxing) the siege. But when we remember the Israeli political dynamic, it makes perfect sense. The real threat the Center-Left alliance faces (from Netanyahu) makes LBJ's Gulf of Tonkin look paranoid. And it's no secret that Israel was building up for a massive assault (which it called "inevitable") throughout the cease-fire. The offensive has evidently succeeded, not in making Israelis safer, but in making Livni's election safer.