For my own personal sanity i'm going to start collecting some of the more aberrant reporting i'm seeing on this saga. Chris McGreal from The Guardian writes (from Jerusalem):
"But military and political analysts say that Hamas can block the Israeli strategy simply by refusing to agree to a ceasefire, no matter how bad things get. The military would then be stuck inside a potentially anarchic Gaza Strip, attempting to stop Hamas rockets, every one of which fired into Israel would amount to a victory for the Islamist group."
Chris needs to do a little more research and a little less conjecture. The Israeli government has broken a 6-month ceasefire that began on June 19, 2008, as reported by the New York Times on June 18, 2008. The Israeli invasion that began November 4, covered by The Guardian, obviously breaches that agreement. Given that this date was election day in the US, and an upcoming election in Israel, is it cynical to think this was seen as an opportunity?
The implication of the above paragraph, from the article, is of Hamas holding the key to a successful ceasefire, even though it is Israel who has breached the previous agreement. There is also a somewhat strange logic that the reader should be pitying Israeli forces (I can't in all consciousness call them a defence force) if they have to continue fighting in Gaza. These are not two equally trained and armed combatants who have decided to war with one another, it is an invasionary force with a great deal more firepower than anything within Gaza, and it is an invasionary force targeting civilian areas.
Until the last 2 weeks, 20 Israelis were killed by Hamas rockets in the last 8 years. As i write this, the current estimated death toll is 820 Palestinians, and Israel is discussing an increase of force. I won't even discuss the idea that rockets being fired by Hamas "would amount to a victory", it's too ridiculous.