*on this site (all part of the act..or a failure on the part of auto-correct!) ;)

"Cake is a solution to the problem of flour."

Dude...cake is ALWAYS the solution. :p

Tell me Obi, who ended up with a better result during WWII, Poland or Czechoslovakia?

Czech was conquered without a shot fired. Their cities remained in tact. Poland was destroyed.

You'd prefer the latter, obviously, because you love death.

"I hate to break it to you, buddy...

But in terms of buffoonery on this sight, you're the Costello to my Abbott at this point in the eyes of everybody else.
"

You'd like to believe that. It's ok, I'll let you pander. Because that's all you do nowadays, because you have no arguments whatsoever. Anything to distract from your own weakness.

Obi, while you present some good information here, I think you are presenting a case as one-sided as anyone.

What's important to note in particular about this recent flare-up is that it is not in a vaccum. Since 2008 there has been sporadic violence back and forth, but the most consistent patterns of the violence have been ceasefire violations made by Israeli forces.
http://blog.thejerusalemfund.org/2012/12/israeli-ceasefire-violations-in-gaza.html
In particular you can note the period after November 21st when rocket attacks were curbed completely only to have Israel violate the agreed upon ceasefire.
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/01/israel-continues-ceasefire.html
This sort of attack is typically then met with rocket fire from Gaza, which in return is met with sustained Israeli attacks with a "you started it" justification.

Hamas, while not perfect, have been the main policing force in curbing rocket fire from Gaza since 2008.
http://i.imgur.com/LseCaqZ.png

However Hamas does not have complete control over all Palestinian militant groups and due to the ease that some rockets can be made (most are metal tubes with a mixture of sugar and potassium nitrate as rocket fuel) many do slip through.

The threat posed to the average Israeli citizen between 2008 and the more current events by rocket fire from Gaza is grossly over-exaggerated by the Israeli government to their benefit. Hyping up the need to rush to bomb shelters or getting out of your car and hiding in a gutter provides foolproof justification for any military action against Gaza at any time, even when the threat is not that great. The destruction posed by rockets from Gaza compared to the continued barrage Israel mets out to that entire population is so uneven it should make any loyal Israel supporter question their motives. It goes without saying that Hamas or any authority in the Gaza strip will never have the technical capability or manpower to seriously threaten Israel's way of life.

The more recent offensive itself is based on very shaky ground. There's evidence the Israeli government knew of the death of the teenagers while raiding Gaza as a form of punishment on its people as a whole and riling up anti-Palestinian resentment. Many of the arrested Hamas suspects weren't suspects at all, such as the prisoners who were previously released in a deal exchange and which have now been retaken for future negotiations, if even that.

Continually Israel works to hamper and outright destroy the power structure of Hamas and its infrastructure, which naturally leaves it a bumbling, chaotic mess with an inability to successfully govern its own people. The recent steps towards recognition of a Palestinian nation in the UN, along with the national unity government, should have been clear steps towards a peace process and fully endorsed by the Israeli government, but time and time again they offered only obstruction and threats. Israel does not want an organized Palestine not because it is a significant threat to the Israeli homeland, but because it threatens Israeli control and powers of retribution on Gaza and likewise the West Bank.

It can be easy to view Hamas as a singular evil entity in this case, but the fact is they are constantly hampered from real progress towards stability by constant Israeli attacks and demands. This is why we see time and time again the Palestinian people, some of whom have only ever known Israeli occupation and aggression, resort to violence through the only method available to them; unguided rocket fire.

Great post, Chairman. Sums everything up very well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/world/middleeast/gaza-israel.html

^As to why these tunnels must be collapsed...let the naysaying there begin...

"Tell me Obi, who ended up with a better result during WWII, Poland or Czechoslovakia?

Czech was conquered without a shot fired. Their cities remained in tact. Poland was destroyed.

You'd prefer the latter, obviously, because you love death."

...I'd prefer neither...because, being Jewish...and given that both ended up behind the Iron Curtain (you may count that as a good thing, I do not) I...um...well, I don't like the idea of my country being taken over by Hitler OR Stalin, funnily enough?

O.o Really, that was the best example for your asinine "Conquest = Peace" position you could think of...because when we think of states that had good 20th centuries, yeah, now-extinct Czechoslovakia and fucking Poland of all places come to mind.

Given A and B, I choose Answer C, as in Conquest DOES NOT Equal Peace.

@The Chairman:

I think you present some good information in turn, but I disagree on some points:

"This is why we see time and time again the Palestinian people, some of whom have only ever known Israeli occupation and aggression, resort to violence through the only method available to them; unguided rocket fire."

Leaving the whole "occupation" (that'd make Putin happy, next best thing to conquest, right?) and "aggression" (yeah...fair enough, you can't really go in with tanks and say you're NOT displaying some sign of aggression) I have ALWAYS disagreed with the notion that the ONLY method available to them is rocket fire. That's just not true, and frankly is far too apologetic for what is, as you say, unguided and, in many cases, misguided--

It'd be one thing if Hamas ONLY attacked Israeli military targets...again leaving the issue of defining "occupation" in this context, were this the case, I could at least call this a clash of opposing forces, that they're trying to fight a military force which they (right, wrong, or any degree of that) see as unjust. That is not the case, however, as not only have the overwhelming majority of strikes been directed towards non-military areas by Hamas, but indeed, they've declared that ALL Israelis are a target...they're perfectly happy to kill Israeli babies and call that a victory, in public.

Nigee and the others here may say what they will, but one thing the Israelis DON'T do is proudly proclaim that they've killed children; on the contrary, they really try to downplay that, which has its own problems, but the point here is the difference in attitude--Israel wants to strike at Hamas exclusively, and its the density of the Gaza Strip, the fact Israel and Egypt have sealed the border (as you generally do during a war, and yes, the Strip is very difficult to get out of under normal circumstances, but right now it's even worse) and the fact Hamas operates in civilian areas has lead to those deaths. Hamas intends Israeli civilians to die as per their declarations to that affect...and without avoiding the Intentional Fallacy, we can at least say that the Israeli Military doesn't trumpet or proudly proclaim the deaths of innocents.

What's more, in the world of Game Theory, rocket fire into Israel is simply a losing strategy--they cannot win a shooting match with Israel now because of the Iron Dome. It'd have always been difficult, but with the Iron Dome A. Keeping almost all Israeli citizens safe and B. Thereby preventing them from getting war weary early on and thus having them support a ground invasion, rocketing to try and make progress really is no progress...indeed, it's a slide against the Palestinian hopes, as now they must bear more damage in a ground assault, which would not have happened if not for those rocket attacks.

"The recent steps towards recognition of a Palestinian nation in the UN, along with the national unity government, should have been clear steps towards a peace process and fully endorsed by the Israeli government, but time and time again they offered only obstruction and threats. Israel does not want an organized Palestine not because it is a significant threat to the Israeli homeland, but because it threatens Israeli control and powers of retribution on Gaza and likewise the West Bank."

I disagree with that last part entirely--Israel is pretty divided on the question of a Palestinian state. It WAS VERY OBSTRUCTIONIST during the UN meetings, that much is fair to say. It is likewise fair to say that a nail in the coffin for Israel there was Hamas being part of a coalition government...that's not an acceptable position, and I have to believe Abbas knew that, and thus his making that deal was a double-win--it made him look like the reasonable one and Israel look bad, because Israel cannot accept a neighbor with Hamas as part of the government. Whether or not Israel should have quit the UN talks over that point is one matter, up for debate, to be fair...likewise, I think it's fair for Israel to be extremely upset to have an enemy that ran on a platform of rocketing Israel and, indeed, has as its most "notable" achievement the constant rocketing of Israel and declarations to kill Israeli civilians as part of a neighboring state's ruling party.

As to your second point, I don't think Israel would feel upset to have that power of control and retribution limited if, indeed, in exchange they got less of a reason to have to retaliate or control a region shooting thousands of rockets at them--Iron Dome or no, that's simply not acceptable for any state to have to live with. Whether or not you feel Israel's response to that is proportionate or not, I stand firmly on that point, that it is NOT acceptable and NOT something Israel should have to live with, especially now that the rockets are reaching further into Israel than ever before. So, if that stopped, and a State of Palestine did an effective job of cracking down on that themselves, I think Israel would be fine with not having to continually do this dance, lose lives, and lose esteem in the eyes of the world.

Now, part of this is admittedly going to come down to how you're predisposed on the situation here--if you are, as some here are, predisposed to think that Israel will no matter what want to kill Palestinians, then the above won't sway you, because you've already reached your conclusion, frankly, and you're not going to be shaken from that. (Trust me, after 12 days of this, I know.) ;) But those aren't really the people I'm carrying on this War of Words for anyway. So, if you think Israel will kill Palestinians no matter what and that Israel is itself an occupying, evil state no matter what, at that point...well, if nearly 70 years and countless peace talks haven't been able to dissuade certain people from thinking that (just as it hasn't been able to dissuade some from thinking all Palestinians are lawless rocketing, bombing terrorists) then I can't help you.

I'm not saying you are of that persuasion, I'm just saying that if that's the view someone takes on this, really, I can't change it, because it's a view that comes before the argument itself.

But I DO think Israel would be OK taking a break from having to respond to these attacks and letting a State of Palestine do it if, indeed, that state could be trusted and made good on its word to do so (and likewise, Israel would have to crack down on any wrongdoers on it end of the fence.)

"Continually Israel works to hamper and outright destroy the power structure of Hamas and its infrastructure, which naturally leaves it a bumbling, chaotic mess with an inability to successfully govern its own people."

I would argue that, regardless of its efficiency--and there are serious questions as to that, war with Israel or no--Hamas is, again, an enemy of Israel, and a hostile, active, rocket-firing one at that. I think it has every right to try and hamper and destroy an enemy that does what Hamas does and says what Hamas says...when a neighbor says they want you dead, and attack you repeatedly, you are within your right as a sovereign nation to stop that nation's capacity to do you harm. The Iron Dome is new, a recent wrinkle to this, and maybe it WILL change the way Israel approaches this...but with these tunnels into Israel, with continuous rocket fire, with Hamas breaking a ceasefire that was done for the benefit of the Palestinians for humanitarian aid (and regardless of whether Hamas likes Egypt or not, if it were interested in humanitarian aid for the people it purports to support, it should have honored that ceasefire for THEIR sake) Hamas is giving Israel every reason to respond.

Hamas is provoking Israel, and as it gets aid, sympathy, attention, recruits, and votes when it does so and when the death toll on either side soars, it is happy to do so...how much Israel should respond to that provocation is up for debate, but as I stated earlier in this thread, Israel has done quite a bit both before and during this operation to try and limit things and forestall this, because this is frankly wearying to Israel and its people as well. Even with the death toll lopsided, Israelis can't keep wanting fight after fight after fight like this...if we were to be cynical here, we might even say it's partially because it's just not in Israel's interests to fight. They gain nothing by this--Hamas, as stated above, does. If they don't fight, Hamas keeps rocketing them; if they do fight, they suffer condemnation.

To a degree, that condemnation may be fair, but I likewise can't fault Israel for being better supplied and not being afraid of using those better weapons and supplies...are they supposed to just not use them?

Gaza needs a new government...and deep down, I think that's what Israel wants, too. Hamas is not the answer, in fact, it's the problem, or one of them, anyway. Israeli policies regarding the Strip need to change, but they WON'T as long as Hamas is in power, as Hamas stands for war, intends war, gets elected on war, and can only ever produce war. Even if you happened to support Hamas (which I'd completely disagree with) at this point, I'd argue, you'd have to see Hamas as a political party that cannot deliver what Gaza needs--change, economic reform, and most importantly, the peaceful atmosphere with Israel needed to accomplish that.

Get Hamas out of there, and I think the Gaza Strip Palestinians and the Israelis will both do a lot better.

In terms of the offensive itself--rocketing from that area is frankly enough...and these tunnels now being used to try and kill Israelis is enough. A sovereign state cannot be attacked in the manner in which Hamas attacks Israel, ESPECIALLY not when Gaza wishes to avoid the kind of attacks it must know Israel will doll out in retaliation.

I previously compared Hamas attacking Israel to someone kicking a hornet's nest--you may do damage to the nest, but those hornets are going to be mad, and given enough of them, they will sting, keep stinging, and sting until either you're hurt badly or THEY have had enough. Gazans can't "run away" from those stings, either, they're in an area that Israel and Egypt have shut down because NEITHER want to deal with Hamas OR want Hamas to get weapons in across those borders.

So only someone who cares more about inflicting pain for pain's sake, the symbolism of kicking a hornet's nest, or both would endeavor to undertake such a foolish, harmful, and wrongful act, and thereby get stung and suffer. Hamas is that fool who seeks pain for pain's sake in Israel's case, and who cares more about the symbolism than anything else for recruitment's sake, and so is not a viable long-term government solution for Gaza, or for Gaza visa vi Israel.

Israel will not be taken down, and so Hamas MUST be taken out of the picture if Israel, Gaza, and the PLO in the West Bank (where Israeli settlers ARE in the moral wrong and DO need to stop and DO deserve condemnation) are to have any chance at a peace deal any time soon.

"The destruction posed by rockets from Gaza compared to the continued barrage Israel mets out to that entire population is so uneven it should make any loyal Israel supporter question their motives."

It is not the scale, but the principle which matters to Israel--

More than 1600 rockets now. That's more than 1600 chances to kill someone, more than 1600 violations of a nation's sovereign borders, more than 1600 attempts to try and cause damage and suffering, and as most of these rockets are aimed at non-military targets, but simply cities or other areas, these are 1600 attempts to try and murder a civilian, rather than attack an actual MILITARY target.

What's more, it's simply not acceptable. The disparity in damage and death toll is simply down to the weapons each side has and not down to what degree of damage or death they wish to occur. Hamas having inferior weapons doesn't mean they have a diminished desire to do harm to civilians and Israel as a whole.

And I disagree with another point--

"The destruction posed by rockets from Gaza compared to the continued barrage Israel mets out to that entire population is so uneven it should make any loyal Israel supporter question their motives. It goes without saying that Hamas or any authority in the Gaza strip will never have the technical capability or manpower to seriously threaten Israel's way of life."

There are doing that right now. Having young men and women go off to war, throwing the whole nation into a mobilized state, having air raid sirens literally go off minute after minute in areas, having three-fourths of the nation susceptible to rocket fire, those rockets, and, at best, the disruption in their daily lives they pose and, at worst, the damage and death they signify is not acceptable, and DOES threaten any nation's way of life. That sets the whole nation on edge and puts them into a state of war...that isn't threatening their way of life?

Living in what has become a perpetual cycle of violence and now a state of war doesn't threaten the way of life of a democratic state?

"Obi, while you present some good information here, I think you are presenting a case as one-sided as anyone"

If you mean one-sided against Hamas, then yes--I am unequivocally in support of ousting that regime...the ONLY qualm I would have about doing so would be the potential power vacuum and what could replace it, but it'd have to be an extraordinarily-terrible force to make me see Hamas as the lesser of two evils.

I want Hamas gone. I see it as a cancer, and wish it removed...that will likely not happen, and perhaps over time it will die off, but nevertheless, I am dead set against Hamas as a group...I said above that there are those who will not be swayed on Israel...I find it highly unlikely you'll sway me on Hamas.

That being said, I AM NOT one-sided against the Palestinians. I have stated numerous times (I have stated above, no less) that, at present, I view the West Bank issue to be primarily ISRAEL'S FAULT. The PLO is a body that can be reasoned with, and worked with...I would like to see that kind of body come to power in Gaza.

The PLO, for the most part, negotiates with words rather than rockets, and it is Israel that has broken that good faith there, it is Israel that is largely to blame there, and it is Israel that has to change there.

In Gaza, however, the situation is different, as the place is different, as the party in power is different, as Hamas fights with rockets first and words second. I want Hamas gone, and if that cannot be accomplished, I wish them to be politically neutered and for a new party to take over in Gaza.

If a new party, one that put words ahead of rockets, and which ceased rocket attacks, and which did not run on a platform that argued all Israelis are targets, if that party were to be elected, negotiate with Israel, and Israel encroached on Gaza THEN, I would then reverse my stance, and take one similar to the stance I have on the West Bank situation at present where, as I just said, I view Israel to be primarily at fault.

But in the present, with Hamas in power--"Hamas, Hamas, Hamas"--I blame Hamas primarily for this, and it is Hamas that needs to go before Gaza and Israel alike can begin to heal and grow again.

@Obiwan

Thank you for the comprehensive reply. There's a lot to depack here so I'll touch on the major statements

"It'd be one thing if Hamas ONLY attacked Israeli military targets..."

Not really possible. Hamas is not in any sense a military force, it is a political organization with a militant wing. Their rockets are cheap and have no ability to be guided and are largely effected by things like the wind for example. Not that they don't indiscriminately fire whatever far into Israel, but there's a reason they go for quantity and not quality, and that's because only one of those is really available to them. This is a consistent theme throughout my post, but you have to see rocket fire as more the one outlet of frustration and explosive (not literal) rage that Gazans feel under Israeli oppression. It is the young Gazans' only recourse besides throwing stones.

"but one thing the Israelis DON'T do is proudly proclaim that they've killed children; on the contrary, they really try to downplay that, which has its own problems, but the point here is the difference in attitude--Israel wants to strike at Hamas exclusively"

This is true. Proudly proclaiming the death of children would be bad PR, and if anyone knows that importance of PR, it's Israel. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_diplomacy_(Israel)) That said, they certainly do not have qualms over killing civilians; men, women, and children alike. The stated justification is that Hamas use human shields or that people gather to defend Hamas. This is problematic in many ways: Israel apparently have no problem seeing this situation and continuing to act in a manner that kills both the human shield and the one hiding behind it, if there is any to begin with. There have been many instances where there were no apparent Hamas targets around and the intent was to damage civilian infrastructure and not Hamas military targets. Besides that, Israel is in the dominant position in this case, and certainly do not have to bomb schools, hospitals, and the like to get at Hamas (http://www.vox.com/2014/7/17/5912189/yes-gaza-militants-hide-rockets-in-schools-but-israel-doesnt-have-to). As well, as you stated, Gaza is one of the most densely populated cities in the world. Israel may not intend to kill civilians, but their indiscriminate use of large ordnance in civilian areas, with or without warning shots, betrays either a willful ignorance or outright inability to care about civilian deaths. This plays into the larger idea that Israel is collectively punishing all of Gaza, Hamas and its citizens included, instead of targeting Hamas specifically.

"What's more, in the world of Game Theory, rocket fire into Israel is simply a losing strategy--"

This is true. Hamas knows it and militant groups know it. That's why you have to see it as the outlet for aggression it is. They fire in hopes of hitting something of worth certainly, because that is the only victory they can attain. That is the only way they can save face in their situation. This is the case for any oppressed group anywhere in the history; strike at the oppressor in any way you can and never give up.

" It is likewise fair to say that a nail in the coffin for Israel there was Hamas being part of a coalition government...that's not an acceptable position, a"

This is where Israel continues to be highly misguided. As you said, Hamas was elected by the Gazan people, but this is largely in response to the aggressive, overarching nature of Israel's siege/occupation. Hamas would not have the power it does if Israel was not so heavy handed. Further Israeli aggression and indiscriminate murder of civilians only further emboldens the hardline militants in Gaza, drawing more people to their cause. At the same time, Hamas has been the only authority in Gaza attempting to curb rocket attacks. Every time a rocket is launched into Israel, the government responds with an airstrike or bombing campaign. If instead they were to work with Hamas to track down the criminals and bring them to justice, this could offer legitimacy to both Israel and the Hamas government in the eyes of their people. The militants then would be seen as the aggressors 100% of the time, not Israel. Instead right-wing officials in the Israeli government insist military action is the only option, fueled by their own prejudices and need to feed the prejudices of their constituents, thus we end up in this cycle where no one can give an inch. Again, Israel is in the dominant position. They need to recognize Hamas as a creation of their own failed policy and work against that.

"Now, part of this is admittedly going to come down to how you're predisposed on the situation here--"

I certainly do think Israel wants peace. We see that in their repeated efforts to make a ceasefire and more recently in say the reduced sanctions and blockades after the Mavi Marmara incident. I think the majority of Gazans want peace. Elements in both of their governments propel them to violence because they see that as the only response. But again, Israel is in the dominant position. They need to be the ones to make the change. But they've continually showed resistant to any change to the status quo (through their resistance to UN recognition, unity government, breaking ceasefires, etc.)

"Hamas is provoking Israel, and as it gets aid, sympathy, attention, recruits, and votes when it does so and when the death toll on either side soars"

The thing is that the status quo does not favor Hamas. Israel can continue to pound on Gaza, increase and decrease its military presence in Gaza, and use Hamas as a justification for all sorts of retribution. The Israeli people may not to prolong such a conflict, but they are not exactly in threat of losing or being disproportionaly impacted by it, while at the mean time hardline right wing elements in the Israel government only gain by the continued struggle. Consider the recent incitements of anti-arab hatred, fueled almost intentionally by the Israeli government in the run up to their continued bombing campaign and now ground invasion. Israeli is without a doubt trailing more and more right wing by the day, and this works into the favor of a select few politicians and generals. The left-wing and peace efforts in Israel are marginalized more and more as long as Israel can use the conflict to their advantage, which they have been doing for years now.

" Israeli policies regarding the Strip need to change, but they WON'T as long as Hamas is in power, as Hamas stands for war, intends war, gets elected on war, and can only ever produce war."

And this is where we are stuck. Hamas is only a product of Israel's aggressive policies and sustained siege/occupation. But Israel won't change as long as Hamas is around. The people of Gaza will never be able to rise up and remove or vote out their governing body as long as an exterior, existential threat exists. You see this all throughout history, from Napoleon's France to Nazi Germany; the existence of outside threats will always collect people together and remove any chance at shifting inner policy. This cannot change until Israel itself changes. This is why Israel's obstruction towards the UN recognition and unity government are so frustrating, because those were the first efforts outside of violence and aggression towards some kind of change in the status quo, but they will go nowhere as long as Israel does not want them to.

"In terms of the offensive itself--rocketing from that area is frankly enough...and these tunnels now being used to try and kill Israelis is enough"

Israel cannot accept that, but they cannot met out collective punishment on Gaza as a whole as they have done time and time again.

"There are doing that right now. Having young men and women go off to war, throwing the whole nation into a mobilized state, having air raid sirens literally go off minute after minute in areas, having three-fourths of the nation susceptible to rocket fire, those rockets, and, at best, the disruption in their daily lives they pose and, at worst, the damage and death they signify is not acceptable, and DOES threaten any nation's way of life. That sets the whole nation on edge and puts them into a state of war...that isn't threatening their way of life?"

This does not threaten their way of life in the way Israel threaten's Gaza's. This is at most the side effects of waging a sustained siege/occupation. Israel will continue to feel these effects as long as they keep an entire people under their boot heel. That said, the vast majority of Israelis are not impacted by the war in any way outside of air raid sirens and moving bomb shelters, which again are in themselves tools and psychological conditioning used by the government against its people to justify the sustained campaign against Gaza and certainly the West Bank.

"That being said, I AM NOT one-sided against the Palestinians. I have stated numerous times (I have stated above, no less) that, at present, I view the West Bank issue to be primarily ISRAEL'S FAULT. The PLO is a body that can be reasoned with, and worked with...I would like to see that kind of body come to power in Gaza."

That's the thing, the West Bank is a clear, contrasting example for what would happen in Gaza under a more sedated governing body. We still see in the West Bank civilians being murdered indiscriminately with no repercussions (http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/.premium-1.562013), we see the constant destruction of infrastructure (http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2012/mar/14/palestinians-prepare-to-lose-solar-panels), and we see the expansion of Israeli settlers into land that Palestinians have owned and lived on for generations (http://online.wsj.com/articles/israel-issues-tenders-for-1-500-new-housing-units-in-west-bank-east-jerusalem-1401991417). This is exactly what would occur in Gaza under a government which capitulated to Israel's every demand. The only chance is for Israel to recognize the legitimacy of the local governing bodies in Gaza and the West Bank, but they know they don't have to because they are backed by massive international support (both people wise and from nations such as the US), and that status quo inevitably favors them over time. These policies do not represent a government willing to find a comprimise or work with their neighbors, like what we see in the West Bank, but is nothing less than a purposeful and specific slow genocide of an entire people.

"What's more, in the world of Game Theory, rocket fire into Israel is simply a losing strategy--"

"This is true. Hamas knows it and militant groups know it. That's why you have to see it as the outlet for aggression it is. They fire in hopes of hitting something of worth certainly, because that is the only victory they can attain. That is the only way they can save face in their situation. This is the case for any oppressed group anywhere in the history; strike at the oppressor in any way you can and never give up. "

Or create a bunker mentality and take casualties in order to win in the arena of public opinion. Rocket fire is a strategic decision to draw Israeli retaliation and to consolidate support at home, win support abroad and weaken Israel. "Outlet of aggression," Please. Rocket fire is a winning strategy, but only if Israel plays along, and they do so enthusiastically for short term political gain in return for long term political destruction.

You're right, rocket fire is a winning strategy. It has definitely only been a boon for Gazan infrastructure and lives, especially those of Hamas leadership.

There is no winning strategy for Palestinians here.

The only way to win is not to play.

Care to have a game of chess?

"What's more, in the world of Game Theory, rocket fire into Israel is simply a losing strategy--"

Has it occurred to people that just possibly the supply of iron dome missiles is finite, both in absolute and economic terms? The Israeli iron dome missiles are several of orders of magnitude more expensive than the Hamas/Hezbollah rockets. This could be an economic war par excellence being waged by Hamas. Moreover, this analysis provides a possible rationale behind the ground offensive - i.e., the iron dome missiles are running out. The Israelis may well be faced with tough choices, which we are not as yet aware of.

Finally to all those who talk of a disproportionate Israeli responses to rocket fire, I should like to ask a question - What, in their view, would be a proportionate response to that threat?

Israel is supplied by the US to the tune of billions of dollars a year on top of a recent infusion of some $351million dollars for the Iron Dome system alone (https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/americas/12837-us-congress-approves-351m-in-aid-to-israels-iron-dome). It's unlikely they're going to miss a few missiles.

An appropriate response would be anything that doesn't indiscriminately bomb civilian centers and infrastructure just for the express purpose of knocking out a few easily replaceable launching tubes. Something like cooperation with Hamas to track down criminal elements that do fire rockets would be the best method but is unlikely in the current tit-for-tat environment

Before I address your larger response, Chairman (which, thank you for, :) ) I'll address this--

"An appropriate response would be anything that doesn't indiscriminately bomb civilian centers and infrastructure just for the express purpose of knocking out a few easily replaceable launching tubes. Something like cooperation with Hamas to track down criminal elements that do fire rockets would be the best method but is unlikely in the current tit-for-tat environment"

1. Cooperation to that end is impossible as A. Hamas has a "Kill all Israelis" policy (make it kind of hard to cooperate with an enemy that wants to kill all of your people) and more importantly, B. Hamas is responsible for the "criminal elements" that fire the rockets...it's not as if they're trying to stop rocket fire but are merely impotent...they ARE the power shooting the rockets. They SUPPORT the rocket fire.

2. Israel isn't indiscriminately bombing--the reason for so many casualties is because Gaza is like trying to fit a 25lb. steak into a 5lb. bag. It's just far, far too dense, and because neither Israel nor Egypt wish to open their borders to Gazans fleeing the fighting (because both Israel and Egypt fear attacks/hate Hamas) there's an incredible, atrocious amount of collateral damage.

I'm not really sure you could, as packed as Gaza is, wage a war against Hamas WITHOUT having such huge casualties...it's just too densely-packed...explosions have a way of billowing out, even precise explosions, and with the sheer amount of firepower Israel is expending to try and oust what they see as (and what I would agree is) a malicious power that will not allow for peace (hard to do that with an enemy that ran and was elected on the "Kill all Israelis" platform) it's almost impossible to NOT hit innocents. 1.5 million people packed tightly together in such a tiny strip? It's a miracle (or a testament to Israeli restraint...and to those scoffing, yes, this IS Israel restrained, trust me, a nuclear-armed, US-supplied Israel acting WITHOUT restraint wound have killed thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Gazans by now, as awful as it is, this IS Israel "restrained," albeit with those air-quotes, as it were) that even MORE Gazans haven't been killed.

It's due to the packed nature of the Strip, the fact that the borders are closed (which is again Hamas' fault...even if you hate Israel, EGYPT has closed its borders to them, because THEY don't want to deal with such a menace either, so it isn't just Israel being anti-Hamas here in the Middle East) and the fact Hamas has its tunnels and rockets in civilian areas that there are so many collateral deaths.

Now, I *DO* think Israel could do more to prevent civilian deaths. That might expose Israeli soldiers to more danger, however, so that's an ethical discussion all its own, whether or not it's fair to ask soldiers combating an enemy to put themselves at additional risk to safeguard the lives of civilians (who many not like them anyway) or whether those soldiers should care first and foremost about their own skin or their own country. For the record, I think the answer is somewhere between those two extremes, but it does bear mentioning.

3. I don't think, at this stage, Israel merely wants to knock out easily-replaceable tunnels and rockets. Not after THIS MUCH criticism...at this point, they're already inciting dozens of nations against them, they may as well get what they really want out of this offensive, if they're going to take such serious criticism for it, and what they REALLY want is Hamas neutralized militarily, destroyed, removed from power, or some combination of those three.

Again, I think the innocent Gazans deserve better than this hell...

Which is why, while I wish the Israelis could safeguard more lives, I REALLY wish Hamas to be chased from power...Hamas will not have peace, they literally run on a platform of war--that's not a power Israel nor the people of Gaza deserve when it comes to rebuilding that area and working towards ultimate peace.

To those anti-Israel here, let me ask--

Do you really think Gaza is better off with Hamas, or would you be in favor of a regime change there?

If Israel conducted the same level of destruction against another party, one that didn't rocket it (Iron Dome interceptions or no) I would join you in your condemnation.

But I firmly believe that, even were I to set my pro-Israel stance aside (which I can do, I did it long enough to condemn them for their actions in the West Bank) Hamas simply must go. Hamas, Hamas, Hamas is the problem...

If they leave and the violence persists, THEN I would concede and blame Israel more fully.

Is that (more) fair?

The tl;dr version, for those not willing to follow an Obi post--

I think Israel holds some blame for this, BUT I think Hamas holds the majority, that no peace can be established with Hamas in power, that Hamas must need and a new democratically-elected political party must come to Gaza for peace for both sides to be achieved, and that if this new party were peaceful and Israel STILL kept up this degree of assault, I would concede my position and blame Israel as a wrong-doer the way I think they're largely in the wrong in the West Bank (where those far-right, often-racist settlers are really just encroaching on Palestinian land and, in technical, heightened, diplomatic terms, are being colossal nationalistic dicks that need instant "circumcising," if you get my drift.)

I think most of us (aside from Putin, of course) can agree Hamas is malicious...

Can we agree on a "Hamas must go," policy, with an "If Israel persists THEN, Israel is to blame for this and we should all condemn that state" rider?

http://www.timesofisrael.com/erdogan-calls-israel-more-barbaric-than-hitler/

^I just want to point out the irony of TURKEY, of all nations, making the genocide/Hitler comparison...

Tell me, Turkey, what happened in YOUR country in 1917, which you still deny, to this day? (And tell me, did those 1 million Armenians fire 1700 rockets at you because they were ruled by a genocide-minded warlord-esque junta of a government?)

Own up to your atrocity, Turkey, THEN we'll talk.

"Israel is supplied by the US to the tune of billions of dollars a year on top of a recent infusion of some $351million dollars for the Iron Dome system alone (https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/americas/12837-us-congress-approves-351m-in-aid-to-israels-iron-dome). It's unlikely they're going to miss a few missiles.
"

This happening for two reasons. First the US built systems have lower success rates. Second the Israeli systems are getting tested in real world conditions at no cost to the US whether it works or not. Why spend extra money with budget problems shooting expensive rockets at an even more expensive US target when an ally can suffer for you.

It's the same thing with Israel building and testing drones before the US used them in Afghanistan and Iraq. Once Israel went through the expense and testing to find a useable design the US took over and expanded upon it.

No matter how much the US president and politicians complained about Israel, the military took advantage of Israel fighting Soviet supplied countries to see how well US weapons did versus Soviet. They got field tests and to look at captured Soviet weapons up until Gulf War I.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/as-israel-hunts-for-terror-tunnels-after-soldiers-killed-abbas-to-meet-hamas-chief-for-ceasefire-talks/

"Thirteen IDF soldiers from the Golani Brigade were killed overnight in fighting in Gaza City’s Shejaiyah neighborhood in clashes with Hamas gunmen."

Goddamn...Hamas needs to be taken out for this to be worthwhile at this point. :/

The death toll is too high for the Palestinians and the death toll and international pressure is mounting for Israel--they HAVE to take out Hamas this time to make this worth it. Get Gaza a new government. Period.

You can criticize Israel all you like, but Gaza NEEDS a new government...Hamas cannot be allowed to rule there anymore.

@The Chairman:

"Not really possible. Hamas is not in any sense a military force, it is a political organization with a militant wing. Their rockets are cheap and have no ability to be guided and are largely effected by things like the wind for example."

I disagree--Hamas IS a military force...being a poorer equipped military force doesn't cause it to cease to be one. So their rockets are cheaper. So they are poorer trained. That does not diminish their status as a militant group, which they are, first and foremost, and are internationally recognized as such.

"This is a consistent theme throughout my post, but you have to see rocket fire as more the one outlet of frustration and explosive (not literal) rage that Gazans feel under Israeli oppression. It is the young Gazans' only recourse besides throwing stones."

I again disagree, as this is again a point which I disagreed with previously--shooting rockets at civilians is not only not a civil manner of demonstration, recourse, frustration, or any of those descriptors, it is likewise not, in the era of social media, the "only" recourse. After all, we DID just see Facebook and Twitter-fueled rebellions in Egypt, Libya, Iran, and demonstrations in other such states. There are other methods of expressing that rage, and making apologies for admittedly-disenfranchised young men who choose to shoot rockets and therefore choose to perpetuate the very cycle of violence they decry is just that--apologetics, and it isn't, with respect, helpful in this situation or other such situations.

The rocketing from Gaza must stop--period. It is unlawful, it is immoral, it is futile as per Game Theory (I will address the points people touched on there in a bit) and furthermore, there ARE other methods...if Twitter and Facebook can fuel what has been real regime change in Egypt and Libya, it can do so in Gaza...those regime changes were and are messy, yes, but it's hard to characterize the current violence in Gaza as anything BUT messy.

@obi - how does your desire to remove Hamas accord with a people's right to self determination? Hamas are democratically elected, they may be war-mongers but if we disallowed war-mongers from holding power we'd have a different set of politicians across most of the world.

Would you he willing to disallow any Israeli party from standing for elections that the Palestinians view as being unhelpful to the peace process? I would also point out that the troubles didn't reach a satisfactory conclusion before Hamas came to power. Why do you think a solution could be reached if Hamas was excluded from the democratic process.

I was sorry to learn that the IDF have lost 13 soldiers.

"That said, they certainly do not have qualms over killing civilians; men, women, and children alike."

I'd ask for some kind of statement or other such point as evidence to that statement...I've mentioned and cited Hamas' desire to kill any and all Israelis, and I have backed that point up, so it seems only fair that, if the IDF is going to be accused of not having any qualms killing civilians, that likewise, there should be some kind of evidence or citation to that end.

"As well, as you stated, Gaza is one of the most densely populated cities in the world. Israel may not intend to kill civilians, but their indiscriminate use of large ordnance in civilian areas, with or without warning shots, betrays either a willful ignorance or outright inability to care about civilian deaths. This plays into the larger idea that Israel is collectively punishing all of Gaza, Hamas and its citizens included, instead of targeting Hamas specifically."

I again disagree, and the seeds as to why are planted in your own response--Gaza is so densely populated that I'd argue it's essentially impossible for Israel to simply or exclusively target Hamas specifically and not have collateral damage. There are too many people crammed into that tiny Strip, and with the borders shut on all sides due to the fear of Hamas...well, hitting innocent Gazans is almost inevitable, frankly.

I think that the IDF takes somewhat of a utilitarian view of the situation, ie, that less Israeli deaths and the demise of Hamas will outweigh the Palestinian death toll.

Whether or not you think that's OK is going to be up to you...but I don't think it's collective punishment so much as unfortunate collateral damage. At this point, I am inclined to agree with that utilitarian point of view--it's going to be a high death toll, but this CANNOT continue. Israel cannot keep doing this every two, three, four years, and neither can the Gazans, for that matter. I think it has to end...

And that may mean a higher one-time (ie, *this* time) death toll, whereas doing this every few years will add up to an even greater loss of life.

On Game Theory:

"This is true. Hamas knows it and militant groups know it. That's why you have to see it as the outlet for aggression it is. They fire in hopes of hitting something of worth certainly, because that is the only victory they can attain. That is the only way they can save face in their situation. This is the case for any oppressed group anywhere in the history; strike at the oppressor in any way you can and never give up."

I understand that frustration but, as I've stated above, that doesn't mean that that expression of that anger is either acceptable or, indeed, helpful in bringing about better conditions for those people or for the Israeli people.

Now, to quote Santa's point:

"Or create a bunker mentality and take casualties in order to win in the arena of public opinion. Rocket fire is a strategic decision to draw Israeli retaliation and to consolidate support at home, win support abroad and weaken Israel. "Outlet of aggression," Please. Rocket fire is a winning strategy, but only if Israel plays along, and they do so enthusiastically for short term political gain in return for long term political destruction."

^This I disagree with, on a key point. It DOES engender public support for Gaza, that point really can't be argued, and I've made that point myself before, but in terms of "weakening" Israel? I think it's safe to say that after years of Hamas doing this and, indeed, decades of the Palestinians in Gaza at large doing this...

Israel's not weaker. It's a damn strong country. Arguably it's stronger now, because these attacks encouraged the US to help Israel with the Iron Dome, and that's made these rocket attacks all the weaker and, because Israel has faced fewer casualties, it's in fact arguably encouraged them to go all the way this time and launch this ground invasion with the possible end of ousting Hamas entirely, even if it costs hundreds of lives.

So, how is this a winning strategy? Israel remains strong, and arguably stronger, northern Gaza is in ruins, the economy there is essentially ruined for what may well be an entire generation at this point, the standard of living there is even lower as a result of these rocket attacks and the reprisals that follow...HOW is this a winning strategy?

Because it makes France and other such nations wag their finger at Israel in a self-righteous fashion?

Unless France actually (ha) BACKS UP its empty condemnations (which would be something new for preach-but-do-nothing France) by suddenly invading Gaza and defying all common sense, which will not happen because, as I just said, it defies all common sense...what GOOD is that PR victory to these people, really?

The PR battle matters to Israel because it has an economy and international interests to worry about...what the hell does the international court of opinion matter to Gaza PRACTICALLY when that court of opinion does next to nothing and Gaza itself is ablaze?

Put another way--

Is having France and associated countries (and not even the US, ie, the only country whose condemnation could actually practically hurt Israel and therefore be considered a PR win for the Gazans in that respect) really worth this continued, violent expression of anger, one that results in Israel deaths, even more Palestinian deaths, the whole of Northern Gaza ruined, the economy there in shambles, no way to leave as Israel and Egypt close their borders, etc. etc etc...

In the Game Theory sense...HOW does the PR victory (if one can even be claimed, and again, while Gaza may well have a good amount of international support via being the underdog, the only PR battle that matters here is really in the US, as ONLY if the US told Israel to stop would Israel seriously consider doing so, otherwise, they're perfectly content to keep this up if they think they have a chance to rid themselves of Hamas and that doing so is the inevitable recourse here) help Gaza in a way that outweighs all that catastrophic practical damage?

"This does not threaten their way of life in the way Israel threaten's Gaza's. This is at most the side effects of waging a sustained siege/occupation. Israel will continue to feel these effects as long as they keep an entire people under their boot heel."

Ignoring the loaded language there--not counting this war (I think it's fair to say war has a different standard of conduct than peace) I think Israel is extremely strict, but not strict to the point where I'd sue the "under their boot heel" language. Israel, within its own borders, DOES have some racist, disgusting policies that are the result of its fear of attackers and those policies DO need to be addressed, I agree, as those are morally wrong. In terms of Gaza, however, I don't feel that label is warranted, as Israel is attacked and provoked time and again, and the "boot" analogy implies a degree of unfairness...how "even" the response is on Israel's part is one thing, but in terms of fairness, I find it fair to stop those firing rockets at your people...and if you have more advanced weaponry, weapons that might well save the lives of your own citizens by making your soldiers safer (ie, it's obviously safer for Israel to strike with its great air force than to always go in on the ground like this) then so be it.

I also think I said that Israel's way of life is threatened...I didn't try to equate it, I think, with Gaza's disruption.

"That's the thing, the West Bank is a clear, contrasting example for what would happen in Gaza under a more sedated governing body...This is exactly what would occur in Gaza under a government which capitulated to Israel's every demand."

I disagree for a variety of reasons, one of the most prominent being the fact that while the West Bank is very attractive land in terms of development, Gaza really is, essentially, a ghetto. No one wants to live in Gaza...heck, a lot of Gazans don't want to live in Gaza, especially with conditions the way they are now. Israelis want to take the West Bank land for potentially-religious as well as economic reasons...

Neither of those apply to the Gaza Strip, which holds no religious or cultural importance and is likewise of no economic interest...who would want to give up life in the Israeli mainland (or even trying to steal land in the West Bank, for that matter) to try and settle a ruined, impoverished, ghetto of a place that would still likely have hot spots of terrorism?

More to the point, Gaza simply has no practical choice but to go with a more peaceful government.

It cannot beat Israel militarily, it cannot even begin to dream of an economic recovery with an economic model that funnels millions into militant efforts that not only end futilely but wind up with Israel destroying even more of the infastructure, and frankly, at this point, fair or no, the Israelis have the power to dictate, somewhat, as to what that next government after Hamas (should Hamas be removed) will look like in terms of its docility.

As a final point, the UN representative on CNN just said that more displaced Gazans than ever have sought out UN shelters, because so much of Gaza is a target...and part of the reason for that is because Hamas has made so much of Gaza a target. The IDF, whatever others may think about it, DO go through the trouble to document what's hit.

And they are hitting a lot of rocket and tunnel sites, and at that, a lot of those are in urban areas. Hamas HAS integrated these militant elements into Gaza, and now Gaza is suffering for it, because it means that in order to destroy those militant elements, Israel's weapons wind up destroying civilian Gaza in the process.

If Gazans want to live in anything but a bombed out pit at this point, whether they like the Israelis or not, whether the Israelis are even right or not, they have to replace Hamas with a government that will pacify Israel insofar as Israel will stop these attacks. From there, this government may be as bile-spewing, angry, furiously anti-Israel as possible (I'd prefer not for the sake of peace, but still, that's realistic, that such a power would come into being.) But it CANNOT be a government that will egnage in a shooting war with Israel like this. Period.

Or Gaza will just keep getting destroyed again and again and again.

@Maniac:

"how does your desire to remove Hamas accord with a people's right to self determination? Hamas are democratically elected, they may be war-mongers but if we disallowed war-mongers from holding power we'd have a different set of politicians across most of the world."

I've repeatedly said on this forum that I'm of that Machiavellian and (indeed) Shakespearean school of thought which would argue that what is objectively moral and what is politically "right" or the right political move are not always in synch. This is such a case. Objectively, free from context, it'd be wrong to remove a people's right to self-determination. That being said, we've seen powers do that time and again after winning a war and deposing a regime that was tyrannical, as you say "war-mongering," or otherwise a menace. The results, of course, have been incredibly mixed, and I'll admit to the defeats on this front, yes, but I think it's fair to acknowledge the many success stories as well.

As such, I feel that, while as an academic matter it'd be wrong to force Gazans to oust Hamas, as a practical one, it simply must be done at this point, as this is the third such engagement such 2009 with a group that came to power in 2007.

That's absurd, and a sign that this is not a group that can work for Hamas...even if I were to be charitable and say (fairly enough) that Israel too needed a power change (and as I've said repeatedly, it does) the fact of the matter is, Gaza cannot force that change upon Israel, so it's a moot point there in the context of one nation forcibly changing another's power structure, whereas Israel can, in a very real sense, depose and change the power structure in Gaza.

"Would you be willing to disallow any Israeli party from standing for elections that the Palestinians view as being unhelpful to the peace process?"

I'm oddly forced to say no, but not because I wouldn't mind disallowing those groups, actually...I would like to see those groups which obstructing the peace process on the Israeli side be ousted. That being said, to interfere with a state's right to self-determination requires, in the first place, the ability to actually do that, and that doesn't exist for the Palestinians. Israel could possibly depose Hamas, but the Palestinians couldn't depose the Israeli Likud party. They just couldn't do it.

They'd have to completely and utterly invert the nature of this conflict for that to happen, THEY would have to have the tanks and the Israelis would have to be reduced to throwing rocks...and if that were the case, I think we all would have a hard time believing that the Palestinians wouldn't just go in for the kill (as it were) and try to finish things rather than negotiate a peace with their opponent who's had the tanks for so long now.

So while I'd like to see an Israeli power change, practically the Palestinians can't affect that change, and in the world of thought experiments, frankly, if they had that much power, it's hard to believe they wouldn't just overrun the whole of the land, so the question becomes moot in that scenario as well. It only applies to Gaza because of the assumptions 1. Israel could oust Hamas if it really, really devoted its military might to doing so and 2. Israel will have to live with Gaza in a way that the Palestinians would not be willing to live with the Israelis if they overran them...it's highly unlikely that Israel would totally destroy Gaza as an entity, and so it will need a government, and so Israel will want/need to influence what party heads that new government.

"I would also point out that the troubles didn't reach a satisfactory conclusion before Hamas came to power. Why do you think a solution could be reached if Hamas was excluded from the democratic process."

A variety of reasons:

1. While the US is supporting Israel in this ground war so far (I think because it both likewise wants Hamas gone and likewise shares the view that not only does Israel have the right to respond to these rockets but, pragmatically, that a new seat at the diplomatic table could help another shot at peace, as Hamas joining the coalition government was, for Israel, the point at which they quit and left the peace talks) I think that after this is done, whether Hamas is severely weakened or gone, the US is going to want results. They've given Israel the Iron Dome, millions in aid, support internationally, and have endorsed this operation now...they're going to want some kind of diplomatic return on that, and I think that added pressure will bring Israel back to the bargaining table. It may not work, of course, but at least with Israel's greatest enemy amongst the Palestinians and the reason Israel left the talks gone, the peace process might at least get further than it did with Hamas.

2. The Palestinians have been building more and more of an international base of support, and that likewise could act to cause Israel to listen to demands...what's more, as Israel is going to pains to say that they're anti-Hamas and not anti-Palestinian, I think there'd be enormous pressure on them to make good on that and therefore give the new proprietors of Gaza a better shot at peace and entertain such a deal.

3. Israel is tired of these Gazan wars...it's the third since 2009...they DON'T want to have to do this again...so I think they want a more permanent solution this time. Last time, they stated that they wanted to empty out Hamas' rocket cache, but as Hamas has begun to build its own rockets, they will just keep replenishing them, so the objective changes. How long this lasts will say what Israel wants--if it stops in the next few days, it may well just be a very severe form of destroying Hamas' ability to fire rockets. If it goes longer than that, however, and it reaches into weeks or even months, as some are suggesting, that would potentially mean hundreds of dead Israel soldiers, and Israel is going to want SOME kind of lasting, tangible peace and something to show for all that loss on both sides.

4. Hamas is, in essence, the "Tea Party wing" of the Palestinian people--they not only disdain compromise and dealing, but they celebrate faux acts of "defiance" for symbolism's sake (and thus we have these rocket attacks.) Hamas ran on a platform of saying all Israelis are a target. That's not a group that will compromise, and that is a group that WILL compromise any peace talks...it isn't reasonable to think the people who say "All Israelis, including children, are targets," and then cheer when they hit such targets, are likely to reach a deal with their enemies. What's more, again, Hamas was elected, in part, because that "no-compromise" attitude endeared them to Gazan voters...they liked this group that vowed no compromise and rattled their sabres and took pride in killing and, again, the symbolism of defiance, regardless of the death toll. Just as there's no political pressure back home for Ted Cruz to compromise with Democrats on anything, as he was elected by people who DON'T WANT him to compromise and elected him BECAUSE he refuses to compromise and shouts and makes a scene in a symbolic act of defiance, there was not, for a good few years, much pressure on Hamas to change its no-compromise policy, as that's what got them elected in the first place. That's changed in the last couple of years since the last engagement, and may certainly now change after this one, as even with furious Gazans, I have to think some of them (even if it's not the majority) are beginning to think that this attitude is more trouble than it's worth...and it is, because Hamas is not a party of compromise, and will not allow for peace--it has no incentive to, it wasn't elected to bring about peace, wasn't elected on a platform of peace, and its hardline constituents, who are fine with Hamas recruiting terrorists for militant actions, don't want peace, not if it meas Israel still lives. However well it can or cannot work with another party, it CANNOT work with Hamas.

5. Even though Hamas has contributed to the infrastructure of the area (with a good deal of that serving the double purpose of having militant uses as well, ie, there are urban areas they've built that serve as a cover for/entrance to these tunnels now being sought out and destroyed) they were not exactly elected for their economic prowess. Again, they're the pro-militant, anti-Israel party. With Gaza beaten THIS badly, however, there's a chance the Palestinian voters might want a more economically-minded party...which would actually suit Israel, as then Israel could give aid to Gaza for reparations and infrastructure with (more) confidence that it won't go to tunnels, rockets, and other such expenditures, as was the case with Hamas. That'd be a win-win--Israel gets a PR win and gets to look nice again by giving aid, and Gaza would get the economic help it so desparately needs to have it take the first tentative steps away from it beinga ghetto. There's a LONG way to go before it crawls out of that pit, but aid like that would be a good first step...one that I have to think Gazans are going to want...and one that can't happen with Hamas, because after this? NO WAY does Israel give Gaza money of Hamas is still in power...understandably so, why do that when you have every reason to believe you're just funding another incident like this?

6.Finally, as I've said above, I think Abbas of the potentially-unified Palestinian government is a person who's moderate enough to work with Israel...that might take time, but I think with Abbas in and Hamas out, time would be on Abbas' side in terms of finding the kind of relationship he needs and wants with an Israeli leader, because without Hamas, the Israeli Right WOULD likely lose a lot of support. It isn't always popular in Israel, its endorsing these settlers in the West Bank has been a nightmare on every level (Israelis fighting Israelis, a PR disaster, and to boot, they really haven't gotten that great of an economic boost because of all this discord) and it's most popular, unsurprisingly, when it has a foe like Hamas to tangle with. Take them out of the equation, and in 5-10 years, you may well see a cal for more moderate Israeli leadership, and THAT would open the door to the kind of talks Abbas AND Israel need--

A moderate leader for Israel who will deal with the settlements in the West Bank, and a joint Palestinian leadership headed by Abbas and a Gazan counterpart who will condemn rocket attacks and those parties and groups that perpetrate them, such as Hamas...more importantly, and what would be different from today, neither Abbas nor that Gazan party leader would be from a party which endorses (let alone was elected by) the rocketing and slaughtering of Israeli cities and citizens, so when it comes to what's arguably the most difficult point after the arbitration of Jerusalem, ie, SECURITY, that new Israeli moderate could make more deals and do them in better faith and with more confidence that they'd be carried out and respected...whereas now, no such deal could be reached, Israel can't honestly buy that a Palestinian state with Hamas as part of the government would take security between the two states seriously...these are the people that were elected on a platform of violence and who have launched thousands of rockets and now three wars since 2009 against Israel.

THAT changing would be HUGE for the cause of peace.

The obvious (and fair) rebuttal to that is to say that Israel needs to do a better job with security too...and it would have to do that--but A. Of those three players, Abbas, Israel, and Hamas, the latter is by far the least likely to commit to security, as again, that's not at all its platform, and B. As Israel would likely also have to engage in a land swap of some kind (Gaza and the West Bank can't be disconnected forever, they'd have to be unified somehow in a Palestinian state, unless Gaza were somehow abandoned for more land on the Israeli eastern border, which would be a land swap that would likely be doomed as it'd displace both Gazans AND Israelis, and thus likely resort in even more violence) and as Israel IS, for all intents and purposes here, the "victorious" side in this conflict, or at least the more powerful, it's not unreasonable for it to demand a few terms here and there, and so asking that Palestinians hold up the security deal on their end first is likely inevitable, as it'd be necessary for good faith between the parties, there's no way Israel would do this first and open itself to a huge terrorist assault if they were wrong about this deal, and as the more powerful party, they likely will get to use some of that clout to demand that the Palestinians do this first...

And they won't if Hamas is part of the picture, hence why, for peace to have any chance in this scenario, Hamas MUST be ousted from the equation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/20/hamas-captures-soldier_n_5603977.html

Hope the Israelis can rescue this guy...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28392636

President Barack Obama has raised "serious concerns about the growing number of casualties" in the Gaza conflict, during a phone call with Mr Netanyahu
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, in Doha for talks, called the bombardment of Shejaiya "an atrocious action" and called on all sides to "respect international humanitarian law"
The UN Security Council is to hold an emergency meeting on Sunday evening at the request of Jordan
The Israeli military said it "neutralised" two militants who "emerged from a tunnel" in southern Gaza, with no harm to Israeli troops
Israel says 70 rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel, with an additional 16 intercepted by the Iron Dome. No casualties have been reported

So now President Obama is 'seriously concerned', wtf, I have serious concerns about my childrens education or the economic outlook ...... Obama is talking about a USA sponsored massacre against unarmed civilians, I'm glad to see he is got the matter in hand.
Ban Ki Moon called on all sides to "respect international humanitarian law", only 50 years too late for that meaningless platitude.
The soldiers being mourned in Israel are paid professional killers, the people dying in Shejaiya are innocent civilians dodging tank shells, or in Israel speak "Hamas militants".
Who shall we blame for the ground invasion - Hamas.
Why, because if we don't it just looks like genocide supported by the whole world, and that doesn't win votes at home.
Cameron and Ed Miliband are sitting at home watching, popcorn in one hand, diet coke in the other, just waiting for a pizza and spicy chicken wings home delivery, apparently it is more entertaining than the Breaking Bad box set.
How much of your soul do you have to sell to become a senior politician?

@ obi: Any Islamic leader who makes a deal to end the fighting with Israel, that doesn't include the extermination of Israel, will be viewed as a traitor in the greater Islamic world.