Glenn and his ilk are using a ridiculous form of moralism with their idiotic proportionality argument.

I don't know what the "idiotic proportionality argument is," and I suspect you don't know, either.

If there's an argument here, it's that collective punishment is a war crime, and it's being done with American weapons.

You can argue that it's all jake, or that if the municipal government of El Paso started firing crude rockets into Ciudad Juárez that El Paso would accept responsibility and immediately begin suing for peace with the Juarenses.

But you'd be arguing alone.

Just one example:in 1970, Gaza has become restless and unruly as far as the Israeli occupation was concerned. An Israeli family traveling by car near the strip hit a PLO land-mine and the 2 children in the car were killed. As a result, Ariel Sharon was appointed commander of the southern front. His strategy was based on the Waffen-SS. Every terror act from gaza was retaliated by collective punishment, often disproportionate assassinations of civilians who had nothing to do with the PLO. IDF death squads would kill Gazans indiscriminately, with the sole purpose of terrorizing the civilian population and deter it from cooperation with the PLO. Entire residential blocks would be blown up if one resident was deemed a terrorist by the Israelis. The terror originating from Gaza had been reduced for awhile, but in the long run, it radicalized the entire strip, actually increased the terror level and the identification of the population with the PLO and the much more radical terror groups, made Gaza a hotbed for resistance and paved the way for an eventual Hamas takeover many years later.

You should check your history books. Sherman's rampage through Georgia and South Carolina, explicitly targeting civilians, broke the back of the Rebellion. Sherman could have been an Israeli supporter of today in his reply. -- LeftWingPharisee

There is no accounting for total ignorance; however 620,000 soldiers died in the war. Relatively few civilians were directly killed in the conflict. Your first post claimed many more civilians died than soldiers; backing off that, eh?

The conflict was effectively over by the time Sherman (and Lincoln) decided to teach the world about "total war"; and they did not kill women and children on purpose --- they burnt everything they had. Even so, there is no comparison to the odious Israeli tactics of today.

Note: Many here will attest to you that I am no fan of Lincoln or Sherman --- but let us stick to the truth.

It seems evident to most outside observers that Hamas represents something far, far less than an existential threat to Israel. These rocket attacks have rebounded upon the Gazans a hundred-fold.

I agree generally with Glenn's criticisms of Israel, for visiting such horrors upon the civilian population of Gaza. And it seems highly unlikely that their present course can bring them anywhere near their stated goal of stemming future attacks from Gaza.

Still, it doesn't seem appropriate that Israel should simply ignore , as some have suggested, the flights of deadly rockets into its lands. The government of Israel has a positive responsibility to provide security for its citizens, and these attacks represent a true danger, however slight in the statistical sense, to its people. Most of us seem to agree that their current approach is both morally wrong and strategically ineffectual.

But then what should Israel do?

To whom should they appeal for help? With whom should they negotiate for peace?

There's been much discussion about why what Israel has done is wrong, but little about what Israel actually should have done, instead.

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.

If you don't hold Israel to a higher moral standard than common terrorists, aren't you equating their actions with those of the terrorists?

------------------

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."--Hermann Goering

Looked at your photo. That looks much more like what I was familiar with. Almost certainly is that. What would seal the deal is not the airburst but a photo of the effect clouds a few seconds after the wedges hit the ground.

Isn't a grackle a bird, like the cucoo, which lays its eggs in the nests of others. I'm asking, here if you're a troll, in case, you didn't get it.

"Still, it doesn't seem appropriate that Israel should simply ignore , as some have suggested, the flights of deadly rockets into its lands."

I've been reading these threads pretty carefully for two weeks, and I haven't seen one cogent argument for ignoring the rockets. In fact, as many have observed, Israel broke its ceasefire with Hamas--if it can even be called a ceasefire, since Israel was blockading Gaza, an act of war. In reality, Israel is not just standing idly by while rockets are being fired. They are in an active occupation and attack of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank. You are full of crap. If you really do want your question answered, read this excellent analysis by FAIR:

"...For starters, the cease-fire agreement from June through mid-December was credited by many for ratcheting down the violence—rocket fire into Israel dropped significantly and claimed no Israeli lives during the truce. (Prior to that, rocket and mortar attacks since the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in late 2005 had killed 10 Israelis—theisraelproject.org.) After the cease-fire expired, rocket attacks increased, though no Israelis were killed until after the Israeli attacks were launched; four have been killed since then (Agence France-Presse, 1/6/09).

Interestingly, as the truce expired, the New York Times published an article (12/19/08) that began with a typical corporate media formulation—Palestinians are attacking, Israel is retaliating—before noting that Hamas was “largely successful” in curtailing rocket fire into Israel: “Hamas imposed its will and even imprisoned some of those who were firing rockets. Israeli and United Nations figures show that while more than 300 rockets were fired into Israel in May, 10 to 20 were fired in July, depending on who was counting and whether mortar rounds were included. In August, 10 to 30 were fired, and in September, 5 to 10.”

The Times article, by Ethan Bronner, noted that what Hamas expected in return from the Israelis never arrived:

But the goods shipments, while up some 25 to 30 percent and including a mix of more items, never began to approach what Hamas thought it was going to get: a return to the 500 to 600 truckloads delivered daily before the closing, including appliances, construction materials and other goods essential for life beyond mere survival. Instead, the number of trucks increased to around 90 from around 70.

Bronner also added that “Israeli forces continued to attack Hamas and other militants in the West Bank, prompting Palestinian militants in Gaza to fire rockets,” which produced Hamas response attacks. The Times continued:

While this back-and-forth did not topple the agreement, Israel’s decision in early November to destroy a tunnel Hamas had been digging near the border drove the cycle of violence to a much higher level. Israel says the tunnel could have been dug only for the purpose of trying to seize a soldier, like Cpl. Gilad Shalit, the Israeli held by Hamas for the past two and a half years. Israel’s attack on the tunnel killed six Hamas militants, and each side has stepped up attacks since.

This straightforward recitation of events is rarely heard in much of the rest of the media coverage of the violence in Gaza—including in the Times, since Israel began its full-scale assault. But for many consumers of U.S. media, history is made irrelevant; a Time magazine piece (1/12/09) began:

Two sounds dominate the lives of Israelis living near Gaza: the wail of a siren and, 25 seconds later, the whistling screech of an incoming rocket fired by the Palestinian militant group Hamas. That gives Israeli families just enough time to dive for cover—even as they pray the rocket will miss.

At 11:30 a.m. on December 27, a new sound filled the azure Mediterranean sky: the rolling boom of Israeli bombs and missiles slamming into Gaza.

Israeli airstrikes in Gaza are anything but “new,” but presenting them as such—and pairing that presentation with an Israeli family sheltered against an incoming Hamas rocket—gives a wildly misleading impression of a conflict where the deaths and suffering are overwhelmingly on the Palestinian side.