I'm too tired to argue right now...

So, I'll keep this short and sweet:

ITALY

History shows us that the Italian campaign DID, in fact, help us defeat the Germans... anything else is supposition and conjecture. Mistakes were made, bad planning was evident... but the job was done. Clark and the Brits/Allies held 26 Wermacht divisions in check while we got tough with the rest of Europe and Russia beat von Paulus.

This is my final answer... anything previous to it was my thoughts and musings leading to this conclusion.

PALESTINE

All your cutsie-sarcasm aside, let's re-visit my stated positions.

1) Israel has the RIGHT and the DUTY to defend herself and her citizens from terror. The current attacks in Gaza are evidence of this, and they are WORKING. 70% of Hamas rocket forces destroyed in 10 days, attacks are now 1/10 of what they were at the onset, and there has been NO rational political fallout from even the most traditionally "hostile" Arab states concerning the Gaza crisis.

2) Israel has the OBLIGATION to either follow through with its national and international agreements (stop all settlement construction in the West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza and remove all existing settlements) OR show the Palestinians and the world (in that order) why the settlements are still being constructed. This obligation is to her CITIZENS, whether they are Jew, Muslim or Christian, and to her ALLIES (again, in that order)... and it is an inherent price of sovereign freedom. It is the fulfillment of this obligation that separates Israel from Hamas and any other terror and hate-based organization claiming the right to rule in Palestine.

3) In making my statements about "invading Gaza", I meant the actual, physical invasion of the region by Israeli tanks and infantry... not the current means of stopping Hamas with shockingly accurate and nauseatingly effective air- and artillery strikes. Israel MUST secure her safety... no ifs, ands or buts about it. My musing was simply along the lines of "What does putting 20,000 Israeli troops and 580 Israeli tanks into the streets and farms of Gaza do to decrease the attacks any more effectively or SAFELY (for the Israelis) than following their current path?"

Putting the Army in the streets might stop the rocket attacks from Gaza, but only because the fighting would then move to the streets, with a guaranteed uptick in civilian casualties and collateral damage and the addition of Israeli troops now being numbered among the dead. This would do nothing to stop FURTHER rocket attacks from Hamas in the West Bank... or anywhere else they found a rooftop or empty hill to fire the weapons on civilians.

4) My "grim choices" comment was rhetorical. Any one of the paths I mentioned might lead Israel to safety and security, but at a terrible cost that belittles the effort and prolongs the threat. Obviously, I think there are no other national governments on earth more familiar with the results of simply rounding up the Palestinians in Gaza and "relocating" them to some are more secure in the Israeli eye... Arab "ghettos" or "internment camps" perhaps? Invading with 20,000 armed troops simply causes the masses in Gaza to flee west... and then you have additional refugees breeding hatred and violence abroad, which is the root of the problem NOW. Siege efforts (cutting off fuel and supplies to Gaza) hurts the civilian population far more than it hurts the terrorists... and is far more effective in making Israel look bad in the eyes of its neighbors.

This ties in with my previous comment rather nicely... "What does Israel gain by putting troops and tanks on the streets of Gaza?"

Let's hear your ideas...