nonsense. there's no agreement at all that this "reassertion" will do anything beyond generate more of the trouble that the "reassertion" is supposed to limit. have a look at this overview:
Gaza strategy divides Israeli military analysts | World news | guardian.co.uk
it's always strange to me how much less divided folk are who support israel in general about any given israeli military action than are actual israelis. you'd almost think that only a tiny segment of the israeli political spectrum gets a voice in the states--and you'd be right, of course.
the contexts for this action are as much electoral as they are about hamas. they're as much about concern over the disappearance of the american rubber-stamping of anything and everything the israeli right does after 20 january as anything else.
but what most israeli analysts seem to agree on (of those which i've read and/or read about, which is admittedly not representative as a sample) is that the goal is a new cease fire on terms which are more advantageous to israel--apparently starving out the civilian population of gaza, grinding its economy to a halt, and choking off medical supplies is not advantageous enough.
o yeah--my favorite lines in the article above are offhand remarks about the tactical disadvantage "a little human suffering" might present for israel--you know, 18 months of blockade has resulted in a "little human suffering."
this kind of thing is what makes it particularly difficult to talk about post 1967 israel to the exclusion of pre-67 israel for folk. everything changed after 1967. the moral credibility israel arguably had before that was disappeared. occupation replaced it. things got ugly and complicated and are no longer friendly to simplistic narratives about israel-the-victim.
i could go on, but not right now...