Well, at least it's dragged on for a few days.

Even with all the threats and provocations, I'd bet that the average number of people killed daily on either side since Sunday is lower than than in either of the previous two weeks.

Somebody else can do the math, but I think I'm right. So capturing Israeli soldiers does appear, statistically, to reduce the level of overall violence in Gaza.

Yes, the Gazans lost a few bridges and buildings. But I read that one of the bridges at least was insured by an American company, so it should get rebuilt in short order (if we can judge by how quickly the Katrina mess was dealt with).

You almost have to sympathize with the ex-Likudites of Kadima, whose instincts are to unsheath the iron fist but who know the reason they jumped ship in the first place was because that never worked and the Israeli public began to realize it didn't work. Indeed, the only poll I've seen shows a majority of Israelis saying negotiate with the militants and trade prisoners if you have to.

Of course, those same Israelis will punish a government that does what they think should be done, for appearing weak in the eyes of the Palestinians.

The bluster and hesitancy of the government shows they know they are in a lose-lose situation. Even the U.S. is urging restraint, and neighbouring U.S. client states are scared shitless of the possible fallout.

Commentators on both the left and right (in Israel, I mean) are saying this spells the death of unilateralism.

How they could pretend to not see its futility before escapes me, but let that pass.

So do the Israelis return to the vanishing goal of Greater Israel, or do they start nudging the Palestinians toward negotiated borders with a few carrots for once? That's not the discussion that's going on right now in the Israeli cabinet, but I think that's what this crisis will eventually transform into among Israeli citizens.

What a handful of commentators have pointed out is that the Palestinian attack followed an Israeli incursion into Gaza that captured (kidnapped?) two militants, not to mention a targeted killing or two.

Tunnelling under the border, the militants were roughly equidistant from a kibbutz and a military outpost.

They chose to attack the latter, despite the difference in firepower. This may have been a deliberate provocation, but it is not terrorism.

Only the BBC, as far as I can see, has had the balls to call Shalit a "captured" as opposed to a "kidnapped" soldier. He was on duty, wounded and taken prisoner in open combat.

Under the Geneva Conventions, the Palestinians are free to hold him, with visits from the newly recognized Red Magen David and decent food and medical treatment, until the "cessation of hostilities." The Israeli conceit that they are justified in holding nearly 10,000 Palestinians -- many without charge -- but that the capture of a single one of their own soldiers is an outrage, is itself outrageous.

I would hope Israeli officials are reading the news reports that indicate their threats of "extreme action" are not causing disillusion with the Hamas government, but rather boosting its support. So far, the government seems to be out of step with the Israeli populace on whether this is the smart way to go.

But the standoff has gone on long enough that it's clear all sides would like to get out of it without a bloodbath. Let's hope they can pull it off.

The "international community" (the term itself being nearly an oxymoron) should give the Palestinians and Israelis the only solution to the conflict that the two sides will EVER be able to agree upon -- a war.

As it is now, all the "peace plans" and "road maps" are just a hobby for the rest of the world, a child's game of play-peacemaking with all the consequences falling on others, a pointless mess. This situation, however, is soon to change, with the pending but certain introduction of nuclear weapons (from whatever source) into the equation. If it is allowed to progress to that level, the entire Middle East will be ruined for centuries and the rest of the world will pay the price as well.

A 10-year blockade of the entire region "from the river to the sea" should be instituted, and enforced. At the end of it, we'd see the only thing that will ever bring peace to the region -- the destruction of one of the two sides. It's not pretty, but eventually the people of the world will choose that over this incessant drip drip drip of horror. Why not save time and do it now?

Do any of Salon's, or anyone else's, journalists covering the Israeli-Arab dispute, do any research?

Aluf Benn, a biased but not entirely unreliable, reporter wrote the following lines:

"Both Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and defense minister Amir Peretz are new to their jobs and, unlike their predecessors, lack military experience."

He continued his analysis a little later on with some editorializing cloaked in news reporting:

"Taking advantage of his partner-rival's lack of military credentials, Olmert distanced himself from the Qassam attacks, leaving the defense minister to deal with them -- and be hit by media and political criticism of his inexperience."

Ehud Olmert has military experience. He was in the infintry and then became a reporter, covering IDF operations. I'm not aware of his rank when he left the military, only that he left minimally as an NCO officer.

Amir Peretz, a man Aluf Benn claims is without military experience, left the IDF in 1974 after a training accident in the paratroopers shattered his legs. After a lengthy recuperation, he learned to walk again. Of course, he left the IDF a captain. As I understand the IDF ranking system, a captain is one-level below a major, which means he was a senior petty officer in the military, one step away from being a senior officer.

You could argue that a general or a colonel is more suited to the position of Defense Minister. But that would neglect 60 years of history in which people with varying degrees of military background held that position, including a former PM on the outset of the 6-day war.

It seems to me that Aluf Benn should spend more time reporting facts and less time editorializing. Perhaps then he might also have reported that Egypt's negotiations were a ruse that pissed off Hamas more than they helped. Instead he dumped the blame on the Israelis who were, after all, attacked by the Arabs and are more than capable and legally allowed to retaliate with whatever force is necessary.