People are throwing around "HAMAS IS KILLING ISRAELIS OMG111!" without adding anything to their arguments. I AM NOT SAYING THEY ARE NOT GUILTY OF KILLING INNOCENT ISRAELI CIVILIANS, BECAUSE THEY ARE.
In 9 days of Hamas rocket fire, the hundreds of rockets you guys are talking about, they've killed a grand sum of 4 Israels. FOUR. Death tolls from Israeli airstrikes are approaching 500 (473 was the last thing I saw) and the injured are climbing past 2300. Israel is carpet bombing one of the most people dense regions in the area under the premise that they are targeting Hamas senior officials. The largest confirmed number of Hamas officials killed I saw online was 10, including Rayan, and I think that was from Haaretz, Israel's largest newspaper. On the other hand, there are 100 dead children confirmed. Let's see, Start, Run, calc.exe, 10/473.....that's a 2% accuracy. You really call that strategic targeting?
Olmert, Livni, and Barak are up for reelection, and they will do anything to keep the right-wing in power in Israel. ANYTHING. This is nothing more than a brutal show of power to pad their vote. Hamas resumed firing missiles AFTER talks with Israel to renew the truce fell through. Part of the terms of the six month truce were that Israeli would remove the long standing blockade on medicine, food, and diesel into Gaza.
If you want to talk about Hamas violating the truce with sporadic rocket fire (less than a dozen rockets in six months) and justify Israel not removing the blockade, I can argue Israeli agression in and around Gaza, and a protestor who was shot dead in the West Bank which sparked brief rocket fire during the cease-fire. Israel did not remove the blockade, 1.5 million are still badly in need of supplies, and they're fed up. Firing crude, unguided fertilizer based rockets is not right, and it will not solve the problem, but at the moment, that's the path Hamas has chosen, and it's their only option to convince themselves that they can still "fight back."
To answer your poll, I think the whole fight is a bunch of epic fail, and the second question is preposterous. Iraq should be an example; if we want to attack someone, we will, whether or not we have a reason to be there.