i, as opposed to you, live here

salamat wa’illa leka

a 3 hour “mini-cease fire” of 3 hours to allow food and medicine was agreed upon

the Hamas utilised it to run more rockets and ammunition into the Gaza city area

Hallelujah!! the voice of reason is heard…

no Hamas=no violence=no blockade

“They want to fight, fine, they can go battle it out somewhere else. Not within civilian territories.”

Hamas started the fight by using your so called “civilian territory” as it’s base…

Israel was supposed to say “meet me at high noon somewhere else”?

yes, Hamas is to blame, Yes, Hamas is responsible for the deaths

It seems that whenever Israel responds to violent overtures from groups such as Hizbullah and Hamas, leaders of the international community are quick to assign equal condemnation to Israelis and Palestinians regardless of whether one is legitimately acting in self-defense. In war, there are winners and losers, and the only palatable means of victory come from a disproportionate use of force. It does not make sense to demand one technologically or militarily superior belligerent to refrain from fighting to their full potential, simply because they are able to enact “disproportionate” damage on a weaker foe.
Should the U.S. have refrained from using the atomic bomb because Japan did not yet possess one? Would it have been better to extend Lend-Lease to Nazi Germany as well as Britain so that neither side would gain the advantage? Simply put, a militarily superior force should not limit itself due to the international community’s desire to root for the underdog. Furthermore, Hamas should garner no international sympathy simply because it made the poor decision of engaging an enemy of far-superior military might.

While I agree with you in some cases – I think in the case of Palestine/Israel front this is not the case. It’s hard to claim that it is Hamas’ choice to have significantly fewer resources, barricaded into a very small densely populated area. They really did not have a choice in the matter of where they set up shop. Had they set themselves up in or around a major city in Israel such as Jerusalem and just causes major terror within this city, the rule of law would have taken into effect. The local and country officials would have gone door to door or set up stings, arrested the offenders and placed them in a court of law just like a democracy is meant to do. Countries do not go into major cities and just start bombing and sending in tanks within their own boundaries.

One of the main reasons Hamas felt they should resort to violence is because they felt as though that was the only to accomplish their goals. Having been pushed of land they felt was rightfully theirs, pushed into a densely populated area while they watch as their land becomes sold and bought by others. Then the very country that has placed you in this situation along with their ally the US claim you are a terrorist organization that doesn’t deserve to be brought to any negotiation tables while they restrict the follow of good in and out of your border.

While I do not agree with Hamas, I want to ask, what options did they have?

Armies no longer line up on the field and duke it out. I wish we did fight like that. It would make my job a lot easier.