So what. The UN won't protect Israel from Hamas, so Israel ignores the UN.
Next?

They are Psychopaths.

They have no compassion, empathy, guilt, shame or humanity. They are 2 dimensional comic book villains. They are children who never grew up. They are evil incarnate. Soon there will be more of them than there are people.

They are monsters.

The horrors they inflict upon others creates even more psychopaths.

"Sadly, the Palestinians aren't smart enough to disown Hamas and insist on peace and prosperity. Which makes them as crazed as the dog. Some people only learn the hard way."

You're fond of calling Palestinians stupid. I suppose you think this is highly offensive to your enemies on the left (certainly not to any Palestinians who may be reading, because of course you abhor Ad hominem attacks and are oh so civilized). But the image of a such a manifest idiot calling anyone stupid produces mild laughter not offense. Keep trying, little guy; Palestinians, if anything, have great senses of humor.

Yep, that second link worked, thanks. I'm not sure what that is. It could be a different kind of round than the ones I was familiar with. The one on the right looks much more like a WP airburst of the type I used to see, but the photograph is taken before the clouds have formed, probably within 2-3 seconds of the right side burst occurring. The one on the left--don't know. The initial trails weren't usually that dramatically bright. But again, could very well be a different kind of round I didn't fire in my brief tenure, or something new in the last decade or so.

I think the goals are: (1) Stop the rocket fire into Israel. (2) Stop the flow of weapons to an internationally-recognized terrorist organization. (3) Kill, capture and/or disrupt in every way possible, the leadership of that internationally-recognized terrorist organization.

And then what? Since the conditions that led to the rise of Hamas still exist, and are worse in every imaginable way than before, what reason on earth is there to think Hamas will not simply reconstitute around whoever is still alive?

If they were smart, if they were practical and informed, the people of Gaza would recognize that they would be much better off if they expelled Hamas from within.

Possibly so. Is there any way, though, that the IDF could have created more disincentive for them to do so? Whatever opposition there was to Hamas pretty much evaporated when the bombs started falling.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. But he's clearly a genius at playing the fool; he could give Jim Carrey lessons.

I think it's always interesting how traditional establishment media say their business model is suffering, that online reading and choices have forever damaged their ability to sell printed newspapers, etc. when the fact is that the New York Times is not what it used to be. The playing of Judith Miller by the Office of the Vice President; the Jason Blair scandal and its revelation of mediocre management standards; the nepotism of Kristol and the editor; the incredible hold on a story of executive warrantless surveillance - a crime - during an election year; and the regularly inane editorials from their so-called opinion pages. Maybe the product itself isn't any good, that's why people aren't buying papers.

I am arguing the situation here I don't see why you don't see and understand that. Glenn and his ilk are using a ridiculous form of moralism with their idiotic proportionality argument. There is nothing proportional about war and there has never been anything proportional. One could make the argument that overwhelming responses or their threat is what prevents continued hostility from one side against another. Furthermore governments know and understand that when they go to war (shooting rockets at a country is this) that they will expose their civilians to the result of that war which by definition can not be waged only on those actually doing the fighting. If never has been and it will not work that way in the future. It is a much different argument to discuss whether this type of response actually works as I have severe doubts in that regard. But the argument that once the war starts that all civilian deaths in Gaza are Israel's fault and has nothing to do with Hamas is just assinine. And the other argument that Israel should respond in kind to the rocket fire is also assinine. Force is used as a future deterrent and proportionality does not do this.

And I stand by my notion that rocket fire from El Paso would target the civilians in that area to reprisals. That is the nature of war and why a country should think long and hard about going down that pathway.

It doesn't matter if they are cowardly or just media savvy enough to influence folks like yourself. They are doing it, and the civilians are collateral damage. Oh well.
Hopefully the civilians figure out enabling Hamas is not in their best interest. But so far, they haven't demonstrated that kind of intelligence.

in his own words.

One could cage a rabid dog for it's entire life, or just put it out of it's misery. Which is more humane?

Sadly, the Palestinians aren't smart enough to disown Hamas and insist on peace and prosperity. Which makes them as crazed as the dog. Some people only learn the hard way.

[snip]

...the civilians have harbored Hamas and enabled their terrorism. The civilians are the target here, because they hold ultimate responsibility for their situation.

@Elephantman

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.

-- zeroworker

Thank you. In your series of errors, you've made my point.

Israel is not "targeting" general civilian populations in Gaza. Israel is using the most advanced weaponry available to target Hamas. It is, admittedly, an imperfect exercise. But a necessary one, in reponse to Hamas' doing the obverse of what you condmen; targeting Israeli civilian populations with its own rocket fire. And without "American munitions," I suppose that Israel might be causing even more collateral damage and civilian casualties.

As for "cheerleading", my point was also the one you have just made for me. I'll take Glenn at his word, that he is no "cheerleader" for Hamas the moment that he concedes that I am not a "cheerleader" for the tragic loss of life among innocent civilians in Gaza.

If Glenn Greenwald wants to impose a higher burden on Israel -- a large national actor in international affairs, a major world democracy with an advanced economy, and the accompanying responsibilities of citizenship in the world community of nations -- I'm good with that too. It is part and parcel of the difference between Isreal and Hamas.