In this conflict intent is everything and a lot of people seem to forget that in their anger at Israeli policy.
How is 'intent' an objective measure of policy? Surely any action should be judged by its EFFECT, not its INTENT.
Here's the outcome of Israel's good intentions and defensive policy:
500 palestinians killed since the latest conflict began,
2,300 injured. Collateral damage? The price to pay for rooting out the evil fascist regime that is Hamas?
By contrast , how many people have been killed by the rocket attacks by Gaza since the beginning of last year?
17. Now I agree that is 17 too many, and would never condone the death of innocents. But how is 500 people killed in retaliation for the death of 17 proportional?
You can talk all you like about the history of the conflict, hamas' charter, how the palestinians need to get their house in order etc....
But two wrongs never have and never will make a right.
If you had the power to , if it was you flying the F16 fighter jet and knew that there may be civilians beneath you who could be killed by your actions, would you push the button and release those bombs? If you think that killing civilians is just the price we have to pay in order to further our aims, whether or not those aims and your 'intent' be noble ones like world peace, the spread of freedom and democracy etc etc , or more questionable ones, how does that make you significantly different to the people who support the 9/11 bombers?
Israel, being a nation, is not in the business of conducting Vendettas. You kill 17 of mine, so I kill 17 of yours. or 170, or even 1700 or 170000. It is not a numbers game. Because I can assure you, if Israel wanted 170,000 , it would have been very possible. Also it is not just the victims of the rocket israel has to contend with, the devastation of the suicide bombings is also an issue to be dealt with.
Most importantly, more important then the rockets or the suicide bombs, I personally do not see any possible way for israel to achieve peace with Hamas in power. Hamas has to be destroyed/killed/removed/made an example of, before any solution can be implemented.
Now when a nation conducts an operation or proceed to deal with a perceived or a convicted criminal, it goes in to eradicate the threat. And considering the threat Hamas poses to the israelis, and to the palestinians and the neighboring arabs, I am very impressed at the extremely low number of collateral civilian damage relative to the hamas' successful kills.
And if you have any doubt as to the threat hamas' existence poses to the neighboring arabs, consider then why did Egypt open fire on some of the Palestinians trying to escape through the Egyptian borders.
As for the solution facing israel:
Israel is in a position where it will have no choice but to give either a self-rule zone either a nation to the Palestinians. But before we even talk about Israel giving land to the Palestinians, Hamas has to be completely and utterly destroyed and removed from the political map for good with no chance of anything like it returning for the next Two decades.
Why does israel has to set land aside to the Palestinians? Because Israel is a Democratic country. The only One in the area by the way. Currently Israel has a Jewish majority. If they merge the Jewish population with the Muslim population, then israel will lose the jewish majority. So israel is either to stop being a democracy, or to give the Palestinians land and let them self-rule.
However the palestinians leadership (Hamas) knows that they are winning the population numbers game and this is why they do not want to split the israeli pie. Hamas wants full integration. So Hamas can conduct another vote and then go and throw the Jewish politicians from the top of buildings Fatah-Style and shoot them in the Knee for the purpose of crippling them.
So as long as you have an Islamic Palestinian leadership that will refuse to break into Two nations, then we can not have peace, and currently, Hamas sees hope into getting all of israel so they won't let it go.
Topic: Stand on Israel, ultimate litmus test on muslim moderation?