I am going to concentrate on the telling conflation of Gazan and West Bank issues in fallensparks' writeup above, because for me, the distinct bias showing through here contrasted too sharply with all the truly valuable factual content.
Where I'm coming from:
- Gaza and the West Bank are two separate regions, geographically, demographically, historically, politically... etc. (Don't like Israel's obvious push to untangle each region's future from the other's? Fine. We'll settle on "Gaza and the West Bank are not in the same place.")
- Israel withdrew from Gaza in an unprecedented unilateral move. Under fire, without Palestinian cooperation and facing fierce internal opposition, Israel completely and permanently tore down its civilian and military presence in the Gaza Strip. This operation was completed, for all purposes ending the 38-year occupation of Gaza, on September 12, 2005.
- The "wall", as it is very subtly called, was built in the West Bank, not Gaza.
So while the West Bank is still an occupied territory, and there is a wall and it all raises difficult moral and legal questions, an honest argument cannot go: Assault on Gaza, Assault on Gaza, Assault On Gaza, Israel must end the occupation, withdraw from the settlements and bring down the wall, Assault On Gaza, Assault On Gaza!
What this shows, instead, is the writer's belief that the actions of Hamas in Gaza are justified (or at least excusable) when viewed as reactions to things mostly happening elsewhere. Meaning, Israel could cut Gaza all the slack in the world, it could comply with the letter and spirit of resolutions regarding Gaza all it wanted, but the WALL! and the OCCUPATION! and the SETTLEMENTS! And so it would never be enough.
Except that this same reasoning is what keeps Hamas in the terror business, and it is nothing more than simple war-mongering on their part.
I won't go into my own full "they started it" rant (summary: Gaza is being attacked since its elected leaders are targeting, maiming and killing Israeli civilians, unprovoked. Sometimes it is that simple). But if you're going to put up any kind of objective analysis of a situation, do your own ideas a favor and stick to intellectual honesty throughout - otherwise it rings quite shallow.