oh well..

You make the mistake of saying, “is all this killing actually going to stop the rockets?”

Yes, it is sad that it had to come to this. The victim (the person being raped) finally said enough and pulled out the gun and now you are upset about the killing.

As much as you DON’T want to listen Token, Israel’s aim IS to stop the rockets. I’m sure you have some super magical techological powers that can hit rocket launchers before rockets are launched killing nobody …. and taking out tunnels without loss of life.. If you do… you could be a billionaire – SO WHY AREN’T you?

Your arguments against Israeli actions ignore reality. Israel has a right to self-defense, and it’s actions to date are compliant with that right as well as international laws on the matter.

Since you brought up history, let’s take a look at only the past 12 months.

There was a ceasefire – one of many, but let’s stick with the one agreed to and brokered by Egypt in June 2008:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91703595

The news article is dated June 19, 2008.

Please note from this next link, that even AFTER the ceasefire supposedly went into effect Hamas CONTINUED to launch rocket and mortar attacks into Israel even though Israel was not doing anything to provoke any attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rocket_and_mortar_attacks_in_Israel_in_2008

These are not the actions of an honorable people abiding by a ceasefire, these are the actions of a lying and dishonorable people breaking a truce.

Note further that even though attacks continued – albeit at a much reduced level for several months – Israel DID NOT respond with an invasion of Gaza and instead restricted themselves to actions directed specifically at the mortar and rocket crews launching the attacks into Israeli territory.

Israel cannot be criticized for dropping a bomb on the heads of a mortar crew lobbing bombs into Israeli territory.

Also note that – again in spite of the ceasefire – Hamas increased the tempo of attacks back up to pre-truce levels before Israel finally responded with more energetic actions, finally and as a last resort launching an invasion of Gaza territory to weed out the terrorists launching these attacks.

It’s clear that Israel is well within it’s rights to undertake this action to safeguard it’s citizens, and had ample justification for doing so.

not even close

Good argument but based on false premises. Israel and Gaza are not two separate states such as say Belgium and France. If the above set of circumstances you outline were applied to a Belgian attack upon France then you would be right.

But, I would argue that the history of Gaza makes this something very different. Even if you want to avoid a long trip through history the fact that there was a ceasefire which the Israelis broke in November is worth some thought.

Also – and I can hear the howls of protest already – is all this killing actually going to stop the rockets? This is the stated aim of the IDF. I suspect not but may be proved wrong. In the long run this kind of action will only strengthen the extremists amongst the Palestinians.

Mind you it may help the government would the next election in Israel.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5505497.ece

Such a tragedy yes. But it does not mean anything about our intentions or sorrow.

The mistake Token that you making is trying to give us guilt or Israel guilt.

That is like trying to make a woman feel guilt for shooting her rapist… Yes, the man is dead and she isn’t but you don’t try to make the woman feel guilt Token. It doesn’t work.

Try to follow. Let me know which part you don’t understand.

1. Hamas has control of a government.
2. Hamas is fire rockets across their border into a neigboring country.
3. Hamas is committing an act of war.
4. Israel has a right of self-defense.
5. Israel’s government has an obligation to defend its populace against act of wars.
6. Israel is waging war against a government entity that is waging war against Israel.

Hamas, as a government entity, also has an obligation to defend its populace. They have an obligation to not start a war that they can not win, and one that will bring only pain and suffering (and casualties) to that populace that they’re supposed to be working for.