Can you imagine that they attacked Hamas security posts and killed a few hundred fighters just because Hamas has been launching rockets into Israel on a daily basis, destroying property, and killing Israeli civilians?

Now watch carefully (skeptically) the media accounts of what is going on. The very first emphasis I read was on a few civilians who were killed. Well, all of the Israelis who have been killed or wounded were civilians.

And then, of course, there is the fact that the Palestinians, as well as Israel's other enemies, intentionally position their garrisons in civilian areas knowing that civilian casualties will make the front pages in the Western media. Unmentioned is the fact that they are hoping to have their own civilians killed because the media will automatically blame Israel.

According to what I have read, there have been over 200 mortar and rocket strikes since Hamas ended the truce a week ago, and over 3,000 since the beginning of the year (some truce!).

Of course, the release from AP tells us that, while damage was done, there were relatively few Israeli civilian casualties. Oh, well then, I guess that makes it OK! How dare the Israelis make a big deal over a little thing like 3,000 missiles being launched into their Country, intentionally targeting civilians?

Of course, Reuters has the answer to the Israeli actions:

"Israeli leaders are under pressure to stop the rocket attacks as a February 10 election approaches with the right-wing opposition party Likud posing a strong challenge."

You see! It's as simple as that! Thanks to Reuters clear, unbiased reporting, we know that the attack had nothing to do with those 3,000 strikes against Israeli civilian targets. No, it was all about Israeli internal politics.

And then, Reuters also tells us:

"Aid groups said they feared the Israeli operation could fuel a humanitarian crisis in the impoverished coastal enclave, home to 1.5 million Palestinians, half of them dependent on food aid."

Hmmm...I wonder which half of the population that is? Could it be the ones who freely voted Hamas into office?  Maybe I just don't see what Reuters sees, but it seems to me that, when a majority of the population votes terrorists into office, they have no right to complain when they suffer for the inevitable results of the course that they freely chose.

Predictably, none of the various accounts I have read mentions the "O" factor. I believe Israel struck now, to get it out of the way before George Bush leaves office, an opinion I have expressed before. The Bush administration, through Condoleezza Rice, has already issued a statement in support of Israel. And so the question of the moment is, what would BO have done? And, of course, what would Hillary's position have been? I can see this being a real bone of contention between Hillary and BO. The first of many to come.

And so now we await the reaction of the Iranians. Will they join the fight in support of Hamas? Will they goad their proxies in Lebanon into opening a second front? Will they provide Israel with an excuse to retaliate against the Iranian nuclear facilities?

Merry Christmas!  And, oh yes, Happy New Year!!!