Good War Analysis by WSJ
Saw this on a blog, can't remember which one (I'm bleary-eyed reading through blog after blog and article after article at the same time as listening to Radio Darom and watching emergency split-screen Israel TV while fasting) by Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal.
The lead is very telling; Stephens wrote, "Maybe this column would get a better reception if it were titled, "No Endgame for Israel." Many pundits are commenting and arguing that Israel is lost, no matter what it does in Gaza. This author has, in my opinion, a good analysis of what Israel can accomplish with this war, but it has to not succumb to international pressure for a cease-fire and continue with its mission.
There are those who think that this war will enable Israel to 're-occupy' Gaza (which Israel has stated it wouldn't do). I personally think Israel should retake Gaza and annex it; the Arabs had their chance to create a state there. They blew it. End of story.
Israel should stay strong and complete the goal of incapacitating, if not outright defeating, Hamas and its infrastructure. As Stephens puts it (emphasis mine):
All this will be said to amount to another occupation, never mind that there are no settlers in this picture, and never mind, too, that Israel was widely denounced for carrying out an "effective occupation" of the Strip after it imposed an economic blockade on Hamas. (By this logic, the U.S. is currently "occupying" Cuba.) If Israel is going to achieve a strategic victory in this war, it will have to stand firm against this global wave of hypocrisy and cant.I told you the world is skewed. And this is (as Jameel puts it in his excellent live blogging on the war) "what Israel's up against," in this canted universe:
Scum of the earth.