I'm having trouble following you here.

What are you saying about the efficacy of zealous force as seen by our tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are you saying it works, or that it doesn't? I'm not looking for examples of failures, since overwhelming violence has intrinsic potential for terrorist recruitment and blowback, just whether it's ever been successful. (I've heard the Surge worked beyond someone's wildest dreams, but still....)

Also, my "distracting call" is not for undue caution about discussing I/P, it's a call for a culture that allows for nuanced discussion. That is, not treating it as, as you describe, a "decided question" about which all conversations are required to go a certain way. In between bouts of people ripping my head off and accusing me of "transgressions," I've found out some interesting things, like ideas for how peace might be made some day in the Holy Lands. When the text and subtext of every post is "Israel sux," however true that may be, some topics just don't get aired.

Likewise, it ought to be possible to ask questions about Climate Change. If the case is solid, the case is solid, and a person of conscience ought to be able to kick the tires if s/he's not 100% sold on, for example, the urgency of it.

Time did a pretty good article on these questions, in its most recent edition. I've yet to read the whole thing, but it hits very quickly on some of the points we've all hit on, and one which I've been asking about and mulling over ever since I became aquainted with the issue: How will a Jewish state survive when Jews become the minority?

Question: Will military force subdue an insurgency? History has answered this question again and again and again.

Israel's Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, has promised a "war to the bitter end." But after 60 years of struggle to defend their existence against foreign threats and enemies within, many Israelis may be wondering, Where does that end lie? The threat posed by Hamas is only the most immediate of the many interlocking challenges facing Israel, some of which cast dark shadows over the long-term viability of a democratic Jewish state. The offensive in Gaza may degrade Hamas' ability to menace southern Israel with rocket fire, but, as with Israel's 2006 war against Hizballah, the application of force won't extinguish the militants' ideological fervor.

Humanity knows this; they've always known this, and by that I mean that using your military to an agreived insurgency never works unless you're willing to exterminate it, that means killing everyone, insurgents and those that the insurgents fight for. The only way an insurgency ends, extremination, is on its own terms when it changes its own mind for a reason of its choosing, not the terms of the military battling it.

Question: What's to become of the Arabs in Israel? They certainly aren't going anywhere.

Just as ominous for many Israelis is a ticking demographic time bomb: the likelihood that Arabs will vastly outnumber Jews in the land stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean is a catastrophic prospect for a nation that defines itself by its faith. At some point, Israelis will have to choose between living with an independent Palestinian state or watching Jews become a minority in their own land.

Israel's population of 7.1 million is today divided into 5.4 million Jews and 1.6 million Arabs. But if you include Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank, they may already have a slender majority; and given their higher birthrate, the gap will widen quickly. This tectonic shift in demographics is what scared even hawkish Israelis like former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon into abandoning the biblical dreams of a Greater Israel stretching all the way from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean. As Olmert recently warned, "If we are determined to preserve the Jewish and democratic character of the state of Israel, we must inevitably relinquish, with great pain, parts of our homeland." In other words, if Israelis cling to the West Bank and Gaza, as many religious Zionists insist, Jews will find themselves a shrinking minority in their own state.

Not only would Israel cease to be a Jewish state, it would no longer be a democratic one either, unless Arabs are given a fair share of power. A few bold Arab intellectuals are saying Palestinians should abandon the idea of a two-state solution and just wait until they outnumber the Jews. That would take decades, and it may rest more on wishful thinking by Palestinians than a real calculation of political reality. But the population shift underscores a plain fact: for Israel, the status quo won't be good enough for much longer.

I found the way Time characterized this to be offensive. It's painted as a catastrophic problem like some kind of plague, and that Israeli Arabs somehow are a people that should be dumped, and quickly. I'm sorry to tell Time this, but even if there is a Palestinian state created, Israeli Arabs are still going to stay in Israel in some large numbers. Most of the Arabs that currently live in Israel proper have historical roots there.

Question: What does Hamas realistically want?

Hamas says it will agree to a truce if Israel retreats from Gaza and loosens the economic choke hold that has strangled the 1.5 million Palestinians who live on the sliver of land along the Mediterranean. After weeks of global outrage over the unfolding humanitarian disaster in Gaza, any mediator — France, the European Union, Turkey and Egypt are all auditioning for the role — will insist that Israel end its 18-month blockade.

So, all of the focus on what their constitution does and doesn't say is largely irrelevant. This is esepcially true when you stop for just two seconds are remember that Israel negotiated with the much more deadly and capable PLO. It gets even more ridiculous when you sit and admit to yourself that Hamas could no more topple the Israeli government than an ant can topple an elephant.

Question: What are some of the side effects of the war? Much more grave than you think.

But how far Arab states will be willing to go now to make peace with Israel is unclear. The Saudi-sponsored Arab Peace Plan, which offered Israel peace with 22 Arab countries if it withdrew to its 1967 borders, will remain on the table for Israel's new PM to consider. Even Syria, a prime supporter of Hamas, spent part of 2008 in indirect peace talks with Israel mediated by Turkey. But Syria has broken off its talks for now, destroying any chance that Damascus, on behalf of Israel, might put pressure on the exiled Hamas leaders residing there.

So, not only does the offensive not seek to topple Hamas, but it feeds it with every civilian death, pushes the moderate Arab neighbors away from the table, and thus does nothing for Israel's long-term security.

Time got the question right, this isn't about whether Gaza can survive, but if Israel can survive its own onslaughts? Quite a price to stop some

.

The civilians are likely fleeing from places they "should know" are targets, like where the "terrorists" are holed up. So if you are in a pinch for places to bomb, such that you are already bombing targets activated weeks ago that is the best place to bomb, right? Directly behind the (remaining) fleeing civilians?

This account was from nearly 2 weeks ago:

"The airstrikes have sent the people of densely populated Gaza on a zigzagging desperate search for safer ground — hard to find with no way out of the blockaded territory.

"I don't know what's safe anymore," said university student Rasha Khaldeh of Gaza City. She fled her home, fearing Israel would target her Hamas neighbors, then had to leave her uncle's house because of nearby shelling. She listens intently for the approach of pilotless Israeli drones."