Israel is justified in attacking Gaza

Thank you very much for agreeing to this debate. I would like to go through your counter arguments and examine their cogency. Counter argument A - rebuttal You mark a clear line between what you term "hoped for results" and "expected results" and automatically assume that the Gaza offensive can not be expected to produce any positive results for Israel. Clearly there are varying degrees of certitude, and I, as well as many others, clearly believe that the expected results of this offensive is an end to the Qassam attacks similar to calm the Lebanon offensive achieved in the North. If you would like to dispute the degree of certainty in that statement, by all means feel free, however claiming that the Gaza offensive by its definition would achieve nothing, or worse, achieve the opposite, I believe is incorrect. Time will tell who is correct, however i believe that within a week or two we will have a ceasefire agreement in which Hamas agrees to stop launching rockets and international monitors are placed ensuring weapons are not smuggled in. I'd recommend reading Thomas Friedman's most recent op-ed http://www.nytimes.com... Further points. a) please explain how you got your figure of 2% the previous level. b) Currently 8706 rockets have landed in Israel since 2000. And let us state this for the record so we do not belabor this point further. Qassams, while they clearly do cause harm and both physical and mental damage, are mostly symbolic. They indicate a willingness on the part of Hamas and many of the residents of Gaza to indiscriminately attack Israel. It is both the indiscriminate nature of the attacks and the threat of escalation (i.e. if Hamas would obtain more powerful weapons, it is clear that they would try to use them in a similar fashion) that makes the attacks especially grievous. To argue that the Qassams are a nuisance that should just be ignored by Israel, ignores the greater danger to the Israeli population that they represent. A enemy that has sworn Israel's destruction is launching rockets intending to kill civilians and is constantly trying to obtain more powerful and deadlier weapons. Clearly something must be done to prevent this. You may want to argue about a time table that perhaps this should only be done once Hamas clearly obtained larger weapons, but Hamas has shown no desire to live in peace with Israel and the Israeli government decided to act now to prevent a future dangerous situation. c) Israeli Jews have protested every war Israel has ever fought since the Yom Kippur War. They have done so in much fewer numbers this time than in previous offensives. Israel is a liberal democracy and has always had a wide range of views within its borders. Counter Argument b - rebuttal Please see note B above. I would further argue that Hamas uses civilian grounds to launch attacks and that Israel has taken every effort to protect civilians during this conflict. Compare the 2 week numbers of this offensive with the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993 where 1500 militants and civilians were killed and 5000 injured in 1 day of fighting. I would argue that the civilian numbers are therefore somewhat inflated given Hamas realization that their best tactic is large civilian casualties to create greater international pressure on Israel. Further points a) Your analogy clearly ignores a large gray area. I believe (perhaps you do not) that Israel goes out of its way to limit collateral damage. If a gang was trying to kill your family would you accept any amount of civilian casualties as part of your attempt to kill that gang? If so, how many. Counter Argument C Obviously Israel did not loosen the blockade during the ceasefire since the Qassams had not stopped nor was there ever any intention on the part of Hamas to stop them. You may attempt to argue "but Hamas only fired rockets b/c of the blockade!" But clearly there are different elements. Israel needs the blockade to ensure more rockets (and more powerful rockets) are not obtained. Hamas does not need an end to the blockade to stop firing rockets. Therefore, Israel's position is logical, stop firing rockets and we will ease the blockade, while Hamas' side is not. Further points a) No news outlet has reported this "killing of an Islamic Jihad leader" and further no Hamas representative used that attack as a justification for further attacks or any of the events you claim! http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Why would Hamas not cite these events if they are indeed factual as a justification for further rockets rather than simply using the blockade as an excuse? Counter Argument D - rebuttal This is landed that Israel has controlled since 1967. It is giving the land to the Palestinian people. It would like to do so in exchange for peaceful relations. Therefore it is incumbent upon the Palestinian people to show that they will no longer attack Israel convincing Israel that the palestinians no longer seeks its destruction and are willing to live side by side in peace. These are not two equal parties. One is strong and wants to live in peace, one is weak and wants to continue attacks. As the saying goes, if the Palestinians laid down all their weapons there would be a Palestinian state tomorrow. If Israel laid down all of theirs there would be no more Israel. Counter Argument E - rebuttal There are no facts or arguments used here. Just the cynical "implication" that the offensive is being launched for political purposes. Further, there are numerous reasons to believe the Israeli army when they state that Hamas has attacked from civilian locations. First there are the videos they make public, and further after each incident, instead of issuing a hasty denial, Israel always initially states the matter is under investigation and only after the facts are obtained states what they believe happened. And in cases where their investigations have found them to have made a mistake, they have stated so. But please keep this type of argument out as there are no substantial facts, just meaningless speculation on your part. Counter Argument F - rebuttal Israel needs more than a UNSC resolution stating that Hamas will stop the rockets. It needs guarantees from Hamas that they will stop and explicit methods in place to prevent the further importation of weaponry. Given Hamas leaders outside of Gaza explicit rejection of the Egyptian cease fire proposal, that still seems unlikely. Hopefully the leaders in Gaza will be more willing to compromise and I believe a ceasefire should be agreed upon within a week or two. Counter Argument G rebuttal ?