Just some thoughts on the following from Claire O'Connor:

"Thank you Greg for saying the obvious about the hypocrisy over support for Hamas over the view of support for Israel (and indeed the present US policy). The strangling of the resources, the theft of land and farm land in particular by the construction of the Wall, the closing of gates and the use of checkpoints and the blowing up of a tunnel, and the continued refusal of Israel to negotiate a just resolution were all acts of aggression that preceded the Hamas response that became Israel's excuse for invasion."

Israel and Palestine were attacking each other long before I was born. Hamas has been part of this for almost as long as I have been alive. Article Seven of the Charter of Hamas clearly states their intentions towards Israel; Article Thirteen denounces peaceful solutions to the problem, noting that Jihad is the only way.

Faced with this obvious plan for its destruction, calling Israel's actions 'disproportionate' is a bit rough.

Otokonoko,
It is not OK for any nation to ignore International Humanitarian Law (IHL) during war. How do you think Muslims will see the acquiescence of the US, UK and Australian governments? This is not just a matter of Israel and Hamas fighting since before you were born, any more than the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was inconsequential violence in the Balkans, back in 1914, best forgotten.

The item below offers a wider perspective. I hope you have time to read all of it:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gg8fFoccVwzh4-cgOrG7CSDGcTng

American Jews split over Israeli offensive
46 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — American Jews are divided over the Israeli military offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, which is being vigorously denounced by an increasingly active progressive Jewish movement.

The war has sown divisions among Jews here, according to Ori Nir, spokesman for the US branch of the Israeli pacifist movement "Peace Now," long overshadowed by the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

"Many American Jews view this as a legitimate war," Nir said.

"There are however people who are very uncomfortable with the way in which it was carried out and with the extend to which diplomatic means were not exhausted ... to prevent this war," he added.

Divisions within the US Jewish community burst open in 2006 with the scandal over the publication of a book critical of the influence of the pro-Israel lobby group, AIPAC, on US foreign policy.

Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, co-authors of "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy," were accused of anti-Semitism and pilloried by AIPAC, which the pair said gave unconditional support to the right-wing Likud party.

However, their criticism made its way to the heart of the US Jewish community and a progressive Jewish organization, J Street, was established several months ago to defend the goals of pacifist Jews before the US Congress.

Sir Vivor, thanks for the article. It is interesting, and it is good to see that not everyone sees things as "black and white". Certainly I agree with the gist of what they are saying, however it doesn't change what I said (perhaps not very well) before:

* Claire O'Connor's selection of a handful of events or issues as the "cause" of the current problem is an over-simplification. Just as she has cited Israeli wrongdoing as the cause, another commentator on the issue could easily select a chain of events beginning with Palestinian and, specifically, Hamas wrongdoing. We could isolate fifty individual "causes" of the problem in the blink of an eye. That is what I meant when I noted that it has been going on since before I was born.

* We quickly point the finger at Israel for overusing their military capacity, but somehow excuse Hamas's "mission" to destroy Israel. Were Hamas the stronger party, would we still see things this way?

* Hamas's very own charter rejects diplomatic means of solving this dispute, so there is no reason to believe that they would honour a ceasefire any more than Israel.