Israel is justified in attacking Gaza

a) 2% is the following ratio: the number of rockets fired in the period between the signing of the cease-fire and the November 4 raid, divided by the number fired in the equivalent time period immediately preceding. b) "If Hamas would obtain more powerful weapons, it is clear that they would try to use them in a similar fashion". Providing Israel continued to break cease-fires, continued to occupy Palestine, continued to annex territory, continued to not recognize the democratically elected Hamas government, and continued to besiege and routinely slaughter the Gazan population, yes. The only caveat to that is to clarify the "similar fashion" part. If Hamas had weapons as powerful as, say, Israel's, I see no reason to believe they wouldn't use them in a similar fashion to Israel--that is, "targeting" with only as much precision as doesn't slow them down. The only exception is that I doubt Hamas would target the UN after they've shared such an experience. c) 700 such Israeli protesters have been jailed since the "liberal democracy" began its unpopular invasion. Since then, as would be expected from a Left government's new war, the population has rallied around the troops; what I find remarkable is that ANY appreciable number of Jews living in a young (the state, not the demographics) immigrant state founded on a Zionist aspiration for "Greater Israel" would be against a war meant to fulfill just that. I don't consider the American press a neutral source on this matter, but I can't stop you from reading it exclusively, so I've taken a look. Friedman claims, as evidence that the Lebanon invasion worked, that Northern Israel has been relatively safe. This claim is like Bush noting no new terrorist attacks as evidence that his strategy has worked: casualties of historical infrequency should unsurprisingly fail to occur in such a short period. Friedman distinguishes current policy from the previous relative dï¿½tente that, in Lebanon's case, began with the 2000 withdrawal. Friedman fails to mention that, while Lebanese forces between the 2000 withdrawal and the 2006 war killed 23 TOTAL Israelis, 44 Israeli CIVILIANS (out of a total 165 Israelis) were killed DURING the war. Again in Lebanon's case, the facts fail to justify the Israeli offensive even in terms of Israeli casualties. "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", except that Israel plans a UNILATERAL cease-fire. Thus, the terms of the new cease-fire will be less favorable to Israel than the terms of the one they broke. This is not historically unprecedented, of course. In 1971, Israel was presented with a peace initiative, which it rejected in favor of war. After it had lost the war, Israel signed a peace treaty on less favorable terms. This all seems insane until we consider international law. Much of international law becomes binding only upon cessation of hostilities; therefore, as long as Israel continues hostilities, it's theoretically shielded from the dictates of much of international law, including Palestinian statehood, Palestinian right of return, etc. But don't think Israel will have accomplished nothing through the devastation of Gaza. Israel will indeed have accomplished through destruction what they were unable to accomplish through invasive settlement: the rendering unviable of a Palestinian state. Yes, Palestine has incentive to inflate the number of civilian casualties; and Israel has incentive to deflate it. The UN, which sees the women and children piling up in hospitals and morgues, tends to corroborate the Palestinian doctors' numbers. But this all a moot point because "If a gang was [sic] trying to kill your family would you accept any amount of civilian casualties as part of your attempt to kill that gang? If so [sic], how many." I answered the first question already in my atomic bomb analogy. As to the second, I might accept 0 or 100 civilian casualties, depending on my mood. But it would only be justifiable, and here I'm a bit more hawkish than international law, to accept a number of civilian casualties not exceeding the expected number of casualties that would result from my not killing the gang. But my personal opinion shouldn't suffice. If peace is to endure, my biased (my family's in danger, and I don't like to think of myself as a civilian-killer) opinion should be subordinate to an appropriate authority. In the case of Israel-Gaza, the appropriate authority is against the offensive. You say Israel didn't keep up its end of the bargain "since the Qassams had not stopped", but you provide no evidence. In fact, the first Qassams of the cease-fire were launched 2 days after Israel had violated the cease-fire. "Hamas only fired rockets b/c of the blockade!" except that "nor was there ever any intention on the part of Hamas to stop them" suggests that Hamas didn't react to Israel's violation by firing rockets. In fact, if you look at the monthly numbers, you'll realize how absurd it is to suggest that the other factions were proxies for Hamas: Hamas obviously had enough stock to potentially inundate Israel with rockets. Rockets instead followed a retributive pattern: before Israel broke the cease-fire, no rockets; after Israel tightened the blockade, rockets at 2% their normal rate; after Israel began raiding Gaza and killing Hamas, rockets at half their normal rate; after Israel refused Hamas' last attempt at extending the cease-fire (4 days after it had expired), rockets at twice their normal rate. And that's where we are now. "Hamas does not need an end to the blockade to stop firing rockets." Yes, and Israel doesn't need an end to the rockets to stop the blockade. But Hamas has already signed, and was only the second party to ignore, a cease-fire that required Hamas to stop the rockets first and Israel the blockade second. Israel probably figured Hamas would reject another sham cease-fire, but Hamas called their bluff and a bluff it turned out to be. "Israel needs the blockade to ensure more rockets (and more powerful rockets) are not obtained." I don't even think the Israeli government has ever made that argument. I've only heard it from Israel apologists who I suspect are consciously being deceptive. In your case, it's more likely you simply don't know what a blockade is. A blockade isn't customs stations; it's the prevention of all cross-border movement of capital, goods, and persons. That means death to a refugee camp like Gaza. First of all, the weapons' smuggling is purported to be coming from the EGYPTIAN side, not the Israeli side. Secondly, the smuggling is purported to be coming from TUNNELS, not border crossings. Thirdly, even if the smuggling was meant to be coming through Israeli border crossings, that would only justify arms checks, not a blockade. Israel's professed reason for the blockade is to "put pressure on Gaza", which, given the timing of its inception, means regime change. But to the extent that Israel is a foreign government, the blockade constitutes an act of aggression; to the extent that Israel is an occupying power, the blockade constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. It is not enough that Israel claims the blockade is not causing a humanitarian crisis: the appropriate authority, the one on the ground, the UN, says it is. "No news outlet has reported this "killing of an Islamic Jihad leader"" except these: www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0624/breaking30.htm www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/24/2284797.htm www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL24735034 …Those are the first 3 that popped up on Google. In fact, I doubt you could find a major news source that hasn't reported it.