The following "leftist" arguments were presented and attempted to be denied by Mr. Burston, a Haaretz correspondent who is obviously educated in the Israel as victim line of thinking. Some element of truth may be squeezed out of some of the counter arguments, but most are argued well out of the overall historical context, leaving the arguments as essentially more Israeli/U.S. jingoism and rhetoric.
Leftist 1: Israel's true motive in bombing Gaza, is genocide against the Palestinian people and extermination of their right to statehood.
The article argues that the real goal for both sides is to "Forcing a cease-fire on better terms than the one just ended." That is highly unlikely as an immediate goal as the Israeli government has indicated its intentions to eradicate all Hamas influence. While that would certainly lead to a 'cease-fire' it would be an imposed cease-fire on a population even further constrained within a smaller perimeter and still with no rights at all – simply a smaller open air prison.
Leftist 2: The Palestinians have no recourse but to defend themselves, and the makeshift rockets they fire are nothing compared to the world's most advanced warplanes and munitions, which the IDF is using against them.
Yes, the use of Qassam rockets does go against international law. It is not their only recourse, but one of frustration and hopelessness against a far superior military force that controls all aspects of life in Gaza – borders, waterways, airspace, water, resources, airports, and on – all in defiance of international laws of occupation. Israel continually uses U.S. made weapons and their own high tech weapons to control the populations of the West Bank and Gaza. The hundreds of villages and towns cleansed by the Israeli forces in Palestine stand in contrast to the few that the Israelis withdrew from in Gaza.
Leftist 3: All that Hamas is asking, is recognition as the democratically elected government of Gaza, and an end to the Israeli economic embargo. Were they to attain these goals, there would be calm on both sides of the border.
Looking at short term as compared to long-term goals, yes, this would probably be true. Whether it would remain that way for the long term is open to discussion, depending on whether Israel can practice "restraint" or would continue as it always has with sniper fire, rocket attacks, blockades, house destruction, infrastructure destruction, all contrary to international laws of the Geneva Conventions. Hamas has proven flexible and adaptive in its relationship with Fatah and Israel, much more so than the Israeli ability to accept a democratic state of all peoples in its supposedly god-given land.
And yes, Hamas is the democratically elected government of Palestine. It was denied by the U.S., Canada, and European countries even though the elections were considered to be the fairest ever seen in that sector of the world. To deny that democracy flies in the face of the rhetoric and jingoism of both Israel and the U.S. and their cronies in other countries. It would have made a much more peaceful situation if the election had been supported, and rather than further alienating a radical group, to draw it into the mainstream and give it the responsibility it earned at the polls. It has worked in Northern Ireland and South Africa.
Leftist 4: The Israeli blockade against Hamas is state terrorism and any means to fight it are legitimate.
To argue against this on the idea that it is Hamas collecting taxes on smuggled goods and not Israel collecting taxes on overland trade goods is totally spurious. Yes, it is state terrorism but no, not all means are "legitimate", but what is "legitimate" when one is contained within a bantustan style prison camp that is completely controlled from outside?