If you want to be legalistic, Hamas does not target Israeli civilians either. They can't target anything because they are not capable of doing so with their crude rockets (suicide bombers are admittedly another matter - but the current Israeli complaint is over rocket fire). They have no idea where they will land.

So, by this logic, the Israelis have nothing to complain about.

Just because the Israelis may not explicitly target civilians does not excuse their behavior. They know full well that unleashing their air force on Gaza will result in civilian deaths, lots of them. If it doesn't meet the letter of the definition of terrorism, it sure captures the spirit.

Hamas also knows full well that it's rockets may kill Israeli civilians. Neither side cares. They are both wrong in this regard.

This tit for tat violence has been going on forever, and the conflict has only deepened. It's nuts. Israel should simply choose not to retaliate. They should keep their promises to Fatah to dismantle some of their West Bank settlements. There is no guarantee this will help reach a solution, but the back and forth violence has proven ineffective for both sides. The only way violence will work is if one side succeeds in literally killing off a large fraction of the enemy population.

I always have a hard time understanding why the left-wing finds it convenient, or useful, to make common cause with groups like Hamas. Hamas shares none of Glenn Greenwald's values except, possibly, an opposition to all manner of things that relate to American national economic and security interests. You'd sort of think, with all of Glenn's preaching of the rule of law, on civil rights and a free press, and on modern social values, that he'd regard Hamas as one of the most evil institutions in the modern world. I guess he must still reserve his deepest antipathy for his domestic politcal enemies: Republicans, conservatives and American national security advocates.

Clearly you don't have an elephantine brain. Glenn is not making common cause with Hamas. He objects to Iraeli use of American munitions to target the general population of Gaza, and for American support of unjustified Israeli violence. Criticism of American support for Israel and its American cheerleaders is not the same thing as support for Hamas. This really is quite simple.

>>Bring on the fucking Apocalypse.

It is coming, my friend, and sooner than you think. Careful what you wish for.

That's the key to understanding all of this - the reluctance to hold the Bushies and other Washington insiders accountable for their lawbreaking, and also for the intractability of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. That is not to say that corruption, craven journalism, and a myriad other factors aren't explanation as well. But those kinds of things are more likely in an wolrd defined by resource constraints.

Unfortunately, it does not bode well for the future, since the world has only recently tipped from one of relative resource abundance, to one of relative resource scarcity. Expect more conflict around the globe, and more erosion of democratic institutions and traditions in the US.

Here is a link explaining the water situation in the West Bank

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/natres/water/2008/0718westbank.htm

Here's another link:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/water.html

Finally, here is another good article on the Israeli/Hamas conflict by Norman Finkelstein

http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein01132009.html

In it he explains that Israel wanted a military confrontation because Hamas was suggesting a return to the 1967 borders. Israel does not want that, because it wants to maintain access to some of the better West Bank land, and especially it wants to maintain its privilidged access to the areas water.

Here's another link referring to land disputes:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/occupindex.htm

These issues become more intractable by the day as the Israeli and Palestinian populations grow, and as Israel tries to grow its economy. The growing stress on land and water resources aggravates the political antagonisms.

The US is totally dependent on fossil fuels to power its economy. But supplies are going to run short very soon, especially oil and natural gas supplies. There is still a lot of coal in the ground, but even coal might pose a problem 20-30 years out.

The US has always been willing to bomb, kill, and maim foreigners to maintain access to vital resources. The Carter doctrine explicitly stated that the US would use its military if necessary to ensure US access to Middle Eastern oil supplies. Things are no different now.

The change that I see, is that now the government has started to ignore some of the constraints it has respected, or been forced to respect, in the past. For the most part, Bush got away with all of his shenanegans while in office, and it looks like there will be no real accountability.

And all this while resource constraints are relatively mild. Economic growth is still possible, though difficult. Just wait until the norm is economic contraction, where most people's standard of living drops year to year.

Competition for resources, both between the US and other nations, and within our population will grow more intense, leading to further erosion of democratic institutions and traditions. Scapegoating will increase, there will be more lawbreaking and corruption, and more rationalization as to why it must take place.

I admire your efforts Glenn, but moving our government back toward more respect for the rule of law and making it more responsive to the will of the people is a Herculean labor.