well, dc, at the rate israel is going so far, they should equal that 10 year fatality total from rocket attacks by like...tomorrow. 290 so far. one day.
how many people have died in gaza so far from, for example, not being able to recieve medical care because basic supplies were blockaded?
but hey, who's counting that?
further, you act as though rocket attacks and a full military assault on a largely civilian population after 18 months of siege pits equivalent forces against each other because you can construct sentences that make that equivalence. there is no such equivalence.
again, this is why i think the post 67 context is the relevant one--israel is a regional military superpower.
this action pits a regional military superpower against a largely civilian population already weakened from 18 months of siege. it will be a massacre: nothing more nothing less.
you also overlook a point made in the last article i posted about the origin of hamas. it came out of the sharon period strategy of attempting to undermine the plo so israel could then claim there was no point in negociation because there's no party to negociate with.
to be clear, this is in no way an excuse of the rocket attacks--they are obviously not helpful, they obviously should not happen, and the casualties are obviously unacceptable.
but it is somewhere between problematic and disengenuous to move from this to justifying this kind of absolutely assymterical action.
particularly if you factor out the consequences of the last 18 months, which you do not seem to like addressing.
on the other hand, the only angle from which these consequences look good is one rooted in what appears about to happen to gaza.
added a moment later:
it appears that egypt is trying to broker another cease-fire. let's hope that works. i'll post a link to an article (in french--sorry)
L'Egypte tente de négocier un cessez-le-feu - Proche-Orient - Le Monde.fr