Israel has a right and an obligation to defend its citizens from attack and to pursue its national security interests. Of course, any nation has the right to respond with force to attack that is proportionate to the threat and designed to address it.

The analogy between Hamas and Canada or Mexico is, however, misleading and does no justice to the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or to efforts to outline a solution to the ongoing conflict and violence.

While there is a history of peaceful relations between the United States and Canada, there has been a running dispute between Israelis and Palestinians for the better part of the last century that has been marked by wars and violence throughout. Canadians have no outstanding grievances against the United States and they have their own independent state. Palestinians in Gaza have been living for over 60 years in a stateless situation with no real self-governance and no negotiated resolution to the grievances they nurture that brought them to this point.

Canada is a democratic sovereign nation, while Gaza remains in an ambiguous political state. Israel controls Gaza's provisions of water, electricity and sewage networks; Israel, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority control Gaza's land and water borders. And Gaza is internally autonomous - run by Hamas, a radical Islamic regime considered terrorists by the Governments of Israel and the United States, that came to power violently in June 2007.

The Palestinian people are likely to continue to nurture an anger that leads some to armed struggle as long as there is no mutually accepted resolution to the underlying political conflict. A two-state solution is the only way to truly secure Israel's future as a Jewish and democratic state. As Prime Minister Olmert said to Haaretz in November 2007, "If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses...then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished." Ceasefires - imperfect as they may be - are possible in the short and long-term - and can be positive first steps in the road to a lasting two-state solution.

Justifying the present escalation in violence by saying that any sovereign state would react in this manner is not a convincing argument particularly as there were other options for addressing the rocket fire (such as extending the ceasefire that prevented rockets in its first four and a half months - see question: "What could Israel have done instead?"). While Israel's aerial and now ground operation may achieve short-term limited security objectives, Israel's escalatory response is more likely to undermine broader short- and long-term security interests - particularly in achieving a two-state resolution to its conflict with the Palestinians and long-term acceptance in the region. (Please see question: "Are Israel's goals in attacking Hamas militarily achievable?")

Click here to return to our Gaza Crisis FAQ homepage.