what israel want ?

What caused Israel attacked Gaza with very brutal?? Are the Israeli officials think, even if only for a moment, that the attacks they can block the military, or even intensify, rocket attacks and retaliatory acts of violence from the Palestinian side?? Actually, if violence from the Palestinian side is closely related to the actions of Israel?? Are mambabi-blind murder committed by Israel in the Gaza Strip, entirely related to the context of Gaza is Hamas, or did in fact wider regional dimension of real targeted by Israel??In a discussion on a TV channel Al-Jazeera English-language version, an Israeli journalist Gideon Levy and chief editor of the Arab newspaper al-Quds Abdul Bari Atwan, attempted to describe Israel's actions in Gaza. Levy explained that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, to show the Israeli public that he was "doing something" related to ongoing rocket attacks from Gaza. Although Levy does not justify inhumane actions of the Israeli government and the logic for a moment, he did not agree with the use of a term related Atwan. Atwan is a prominent journalist in the Middle East region, has previously stated that the killings in Gaza represented a form of "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing".The former Arab intellectuals are often cautious in the use of some specific terms, because of aspects of western feeling that can not accept the association of Israel with genocide and ethnic cleansing. But today they are more confident. This occurred after Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai warned Palestinians in a radio interview about the possibility of a "bigger Holocaust".Putting aside the terminology is, do we really believe that the killing without reason that happened in Gaza is a violation of international law and humanitarian law, which is intended to send a message to the Israeli public, or truly to commit an act of genocide??(If this is indeed the case, let's look at the response from the Palestinian Authority itself.)At first, though not surprisingly, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, as forgotten, and then at least neutral, to the carnage. First, she called on both sides, Israel and Hamas, to stop their violence, and then accused Israel of trying to "derail" the peace process (peace processes fuck?). In the end, and thankfully after the Vatican condemned the acts of murder committed by Israel, Abbas also announced the suspension of all contacts with Israel.A few days later, after a visit by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the region, Abbas reversed his position. Nabil Abu Rudeineh, Palestinian presidential spokesman, quoted Abbas that "we intend to resume peace talks with Israel aimed at ending the occupation". Given the number of Palestinian casualties were enormous, caused by deliberate Israeli attempt to create a "bigger holocaust" agreement Abbas to resume futile talks with the same person who ordered the record-killing-people, real Abbas is an insult to himself alone.Although the response from the Palestinians, Israel and the international world of unpredictable violence, ways of viewing the above, can not explain the correlation of these events with a variable time. In a sense, [why now? Why not sooner? If it was deliberately done now,] what is the underlying purpose?In my analysis, historically, Israel's behavior, regardless of the outcome, is always politically motivated, and it never does, always associated with a regional overview [Middle East regional strategic] in the mind of the designer.There are two streams of logic adopted by the Israeli military. The first stream is motivated by the "chaos theory," the idea that a seemingly minor incident, it can accumulate to a complex and massive effects on the natural dynamics of the system (butterfly effect). For example, Gaza might be attacked Israel in the hope of provoking a spate of suicide bombings that will eventually blamed on Syria and Iran (as designers and funders action) - which will thus provoking a major conflict in Lebanon. Moreover, the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict shows that how many great invasion justified by events that seem irrelevant, such as the 1982 Lebanon war.However, if Israel were able to sustain another conflict in Lebanon, after a miserable failure and adverse in July-August 2006?Well, at this point that the role of the United States becomes more relevant. Because when Israel attacks made news headlines around the world, the USS Cole and two additional ships-including the amphibious assault ship type-secretly moved from Malta towards the shores of Lebanon. According to Navy officials-the U.S., ships were sent as a "form of support for the stability of the area / region."Moreover, at the time of the reign of George W. Bush-supporters of Israel are ambitious and never thinking it-will be over soon, and public enthusiasm for war against Iran on the wane. In addition, Israel will never allow a regular regional arrangement like this: Hezbollah dominates southern Lebanon and Hamas dominated Gaza [the two groups directly facing the Israeli border], and Iran into a regional power increasingly heavy.This then brings us to the point that other Israeli military logic, the theory of the "big bang." Explanatory logic of this theory can be seen when there is a regional war-were accompanied by a small civil war in Palestine and Lebanon, along with other efforts to destabilizing Iran and Syria-that can benefit Israel.With no reason [for the United States to get away from the possibility of involvement / intervention], would the United States be able to stay away from such a conflict (considering the regional interests of the United States, its allies, and the wars in Iraq alone). Disclosure on the daunting role played by the Bush administration in organizing and provoking a civil war among Palestinians, showing the extent to which the Bush administration refused to move for achievement of the goals of Israel. Furthermore, it also shows the willingness various Arab and Palestinian players to be ready to participate in the adventure of the United States-Israel bloody and expensive.With all due respect to Levy and Atwan, I think Israel's main goal is not to send messages to the public nor to commit genocide-even though the two are not likely unwarranted. Therefore, the majority of the Israeli public, according to polls Tel Aviv University, hope their government would negotiate a ceasefire with Hamas, when the bombs fell on the heads of the population of Gaza, without hope. [This is contrary to the logic of democracy, which is closely related to public opinion, which is embraced by the political system of Israel]The facts that the US-Israeli role in the turmoil in Lebanon, consistent efforts to indict Iran, and the Israeli provocations and bombings on Syria-all indicate that Israel plans aimed at serving regional, with Gaza as an experimental project-because he is the target of the most cheap for isolated and dibrutalisasi. After Gaza into a massive concentration camp-mostly starving population, Gaza has given Israel a perfect opportunity to start sending a loud message to the other players in the region