When Hamas stop their alliance with an Iran determined to destroy Israel for the crime of existing (see today's Sunday Times interview with a Hamas operative) then the borders will be open.

Israel has no territorial ambitions overn Gaza: it withdrew its settlers over two years ago. But it finds it hard to supply electricity to a a population that uses it to make Qassam missiles, to drive in gas in tankers when Hamas mortars the border crossings, to supply food and petrol that is then taken to private Hamas stores.

Why do the international agencies not pressure Hamas and Iran to desist from this crazy self destructive war they have engaged upon and draggged the population of Gaza into?

I must agree with author, but I think that Israel have to do more than only open borders and supply Gaza. They should start dialogue with Hamas, they should stop expanding their settlements, roads, wall, checkpoints etc. But they'll never do it, because they don't want peace, it's easier to control people when they have an enemy, it's easier to spend millions of dollars for weapons, not for peace process when your citizens think that Palestinians want only their blood. Thanks to present situation Israel is the 4th military power in the world, it's one of the richest countries and has full US support. War is a good way to develop for Israel.

Of course Palestinians also should do more than they do now, but in my opinion Israel must do the first step, the real step forward, not like in Oslo or Annapolis. Both sides should fight for peace, not to defeat the opponent.

On the contrary. I don't think it can lead to peace at all.

First let's dispose of Mr. Bindman's argument about "proportionate" reaction. If he is correct, then the proper reaction of the United States to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would have been to sink no more than 250,000 tons of Japanese naval vessels causing no more than 3000 naval casualties--and to do nothing that would cause civilian casualties at all. This of course would have left the Japanese militarists undefeated and able to plan their next move (don't forget that they had taken over half of China and all of East Asia down to Indonesia). The British and the Americans might have had justification for bombing half of Hamburg, inflicting the same number of casualties Britain suffered in the blitz. Then they would have had to stop. They would have never been able to land in France, and Germany would not have been conquered. Eventually it, like Iran today, would have gotten the bomb. In Mr. Bindman's world there are no evil powers worthy of defeat and nobody who is justified in defeating them. It's not the same world I, as an Israeli, inhabit. If anything, my government is too gentle and tender of the lives of deadly enemies, and likely to cause unnecessary harm to my son and my neighbors' sons when it sends them to fight.

"Proportionate" reaction is not proportionate to the damage done but proportionate to the requirement of defeating a deadly, genocidal enemy. One should never target civilians for viciousness' sake or use more violence than needed to defeat such an enemy, but such enemies must be defeated if free peoples are to survive. And it is also legitimate for a fighting power to use strategies that save the lives of its own people and soldiers even if it costs more lives of the enemy. After all, governments are supposed to defend their own peoples, not the enemies who attack them.

The job of Israel's government is to stop attacks on its people. Period. That probably means conquering a good part of Gaza, including a 10-km swathe along the border with Egypt, and isolating the urban areas from the rest of the world--a permanent siege. Or would you rather the Israeli army batter its way into downtown Gaza City and--in the course of rooting out Hamas--level it? Them's your choices. Me, I'd rather go for the seizure of open areas and maintaining a siege, since it's better for my son's health. It is legitimate for that to be my most important concern.

It now appears that there is a de facto truce between Hamas and Israel. I disapprove. I don't think Hamas is interested in more than a breather, I think that Egypt is not serious about keeping arms out of Gaza, and I'd rather Israel attack and impose an airtight siege without delay. That's my interest and my children's.

The Hamas regime is a radical genocidal regime that is a proxy of the radical, genocidal regime in Tehran. When Ahmedinajad speaks about destroying Israel I take him seriously, and if more people had taken Hitler seriously before he gained the power to conquer most of Europe the world in his time would have been a better place. Mr. Bindman's position is possible only through a heroic act of historical amnesia, a luxury I do not care to share with him.

If, as you claim, Gaza is "reduced to a state of abject destitution", it is the result of Arafat and now Hamas helping themselves to a nice chunk of the hundreds of million dollars of international aid that pours into Gaza every year.

What about the reports that, after breeching the border with Egypt, many Palestinians were stunned that Egyptians were so poor?

Terrorists in Gaza launch missiles at civilians in Sderot, using civilian areas in Gaza to hide their launch sites. When Israel strikes back at the missile launch sites, you accuse the Israelis of targeting civilians. Fully documented here:

http://tinyurl.com/323vpn

The only way to end "the cycle of increasing poverty and extremism in Gaza " is for its residents to realize, like the Iraquis, that the terrorists and suicide bombers are their enemies, not the Israelis.