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

Okay for this round I'm just going to respond to my opponents arguments then expand on my own. Also just as a disclaimer I'm thoroughly confused by my opponents eclectic arguments so sorry if I misinterpret the arguments but they were pretty vague and scattered. My opponents first mistake was saying "The act in question is the Final Solution to the Islamic Problem". We are debating specifically whether or not Israel is justified in attacking Hamas, no other conflicts. I would like to see your source of the information about "the rhetorical target of the Israeli offensive, for example, has seen women and children in it's own country slain by Israel itself. In that contest, Israel out-kills women and children, not to mention the appropriate category (civilians generally), by a couple of orders of magnitude". Unless you provide evidence I refuse to believe that Israel has 1- used military action against it's own citizens, and2- Kills more innocent people than Hamas. You stated that "Hamas, given Israel's benefit of the doubt, would prefer its victims to be only those Israelis most responsible for the siege of Gaza". In case you didn't know Israel become a state in it's current location about 60 years ago. The people who did this are gone. Regardless the actions were approved by UN, and if Hamas is really looking to attack only those people why are they blowing themselves up in marketplaces instead of political buildings? I would like to see a good explanation of that one. "In fact, giving Hamas the benefit of the doubt is too conservative, as Hamas evidently wants nothing more than for Israel to come down from the sky and fight fair." I think we can all agree that suicide bombing and targeting civilians, Hamas' strategy is not "fighting fair" and regardless this isn't the 1700s. Israel can't be expected to endanger it's troops just to pander to the wants of Hamas. "Added to which, that relocation is part of a continuous, illegal occupation. Added to which, a blockade is (by your own favored conventions) considered an act of war." Again I would like to see evidence of this. "Because of the disproportionately (disproportionate to the demographics of the blockaded and, probably, to the demographics of the Qassam victims that you anachronistically mean Israel to be avenging) civilian, disproportionately child, deaths associated with blockades and previous warfare, and the anger they should generate, it should not be surprising if Hamas is correct in claiming independent groups broke the cease-fire." I don't understand this sentence at all but if you're trying to say that Hamas was justified in breaking the cease-fire the fact of the matter is that Israel held up their end of the deal until the cease-fire was broken, Hamas acted first in regards to the breaking of the cease-fire, and you cannot honestly believe that they were going to be able to kill innocent civilians with impunity simply because of a contract which they had already broken anyway. To sum up the arguments my opponent has made numerous false claims, and until we can see evidence his claims are true they should be dismissed. His whole argument is based around lies and they should not be taken as fact.