I'm openly, and quite mischieviously, playing Devil's Advocate here. Nevertheless, I believe that only a serious re-evaluation about the rights and wrongs of the situation will provide a genuine move towards peace in the region. From a BBC news report today (I recommend that all read the full article, which I would like to post in full, but respect the ARRSE policy on copyright etc.), First, I suspect there maybe a typo error with the dates. I summise that the BBC is trying to draw a comparison and that they should both be 2005 or 2006. If not, then the insane figures become even more horrendous. The figure seems quite stark. 400:1 Over the (same) time frame, Israel has killed "almost 400 Palestinians, many of them civilians", the Palestinian rocket attacks to which they are responding, just one confirmed. Is this proportionate? At what point is it acceptable to use the word disproportianate? How wide must the ratio become before the consensus becomes, 'enough is enough - stop!' Second, it is common knowledge that Israel considers itself to be, 'at war' with Hamas and others. It uses this as the basis for, and justification of, its robust defence. As in any war, 'regrettable (civilian) collateral damage' can be expected. On this very forum, there are plenty of posters willing to justify or condone, to some degree or other, IDF 'mistakes' and 'crimes' as part of a wider, legitimate action. But, for Israel to be 'at war', it requires an enemy that can also be considered to be 'at war', not so? Thus, it is only fair, to consider that Hamas will also effect some 'regrettable (civilian) collateral damage' in pursuit of its war aims. Until now, Hamas has been described as a purely terrorist organisation: suicide bombers walking onto buses and into cafes. Nevertheless, the majority of their offensive actions now appear to be rudimentary cross-border artillery exchanges. Israeli tactics include, but are not limited to, selective aerial strikes against Hamas leadership targets. Has Hamas now adopted similar tactics? Is Hamas now targetting Sderot with the express intent of striking the Israeli Defence Minister: Peretz? Sadly, because of their jerry-built weaponary, they are more likely to miss than hit. Although this latest attack seems to have got a wee bit closer. If it's OK for the IDF to go after specific Hamas targets - and sometimes make mistakes in the process, is it OK for Hamas to go after specific Israeli military/political targets - and sometimes make mistakes in the process? In the 1990's, the US openely proposed a policy of arming the Bosnian Muslims with the express intent of evening up the balance in firepower with the Bosnian Serbs. Is now the time to propose providing sophisticated weaponary to Hamas to allow them more precision targetting and thus to reduce the collateral damage they inflict?