This isn't putting anyone's feet to the fire. You're giving way too much credit to Anonymous. And if they'd done it to a Palestinian company then someone would say the same thing you just said except we'd be switching out the word Israel with Palestine. And I'd still tell you that these people are fools and not doing anyone any good except themselves. Anonymous is now synonymous with being a joke. They come off as immature script kiddies who just reap havoc for the hell of it and think of a reason they did it afterwards. Or better, someone else ascribes meaning to their meaningless acts and then they don't have to do the work. I really don't care who got hacked or what damage it caused. I just hate seeing Anonymous held up as some sort of Internet hero (dis/anti)organization.

Perhaps you should read Anonymous' press release before dismissing them. http://anonrelations.net/opisrael-95/

I just read it and I can't support them. I am opinionless on Israel/Palestine - there's just too much I don't understand to take a stand. The reason I can't support them is because they operate as if they are the the owners of the truth and the deciders of what is right. Its okay to have strong opinions, think you're right, and stand for what you believe it but the same mentality that allows Anonymous to do just about anything to anyone they deem "wrong" or "oppressors" is the same mentality that promotes people blowing themselves up on crowded subways. I can't support that.

Anonymous has been known in the past to attack first and figure out who got hit and how to spin it later. I am unwilling to give them the benefit of the doubt that this was a targeted attack from the get-go.

And why does every Anon press release read like a transcription of a scratchy VHS tape involving several heavy-set balaclava-wearing dudes?

How about putting Hamas' feet to the fire? They have been condemned by human rights groups for widespread arrests, torture, and killing of their political opponents in Gaza.

They have simply been terrible for the Palestinian people. Besides suppressing political opposition, they also purposefully try to launch attacks from heavily populated civilian areas hoping that the civilians will end up acting as human shields.

Same has been with Israel, there were more than 50 UN resolutions voted against Israel, all of them vetoed by the USA.

Edit: And if you want to quote talk about Human rights organisations, you should also talk about what they say about Israel. A sample: http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-israe...

So, Hamas is about average for governments that the US supports?

Why is it so hard to say that one entity is bad without litigating the badness of every other entity? The military wing of Hamas is bad. They shoot rockets at civilians, deliberately, presumably in a bid to draw Israel into unrestrained conflict. They are killing civilians in order to start a war. That's bad. They're bad. Bad is practically their charter.

Are there worse entities? Sure. Now back to the matter at hand.

I guess I don't see why saying they're bad matter in and of itself.

Of course they're bad.

So what? We give weapons and money to lots of bad governments. Should we do so with Hamas? Just saying "they're bad!" doesn't really answer any interesting policy questions.

But hey, if you think foreign policy is about feeling moral superiority by saying "they're bad!" over and over, please don't let me stop you.

Generally, no. I think we should tend to avoid giving money to organizations that fire missiles at civilians in order to purposefully start wars. I think that's a pretty easy line item for our foreign policy rulebook.

Kudos for what? Engaging in illegal activites? Painting a blatantly one sided view of the conflict. Hamas weren't siting by letting their rockets collect dust. You can't claim them as innocent either.

1 sided of what? attacking innocent civillians? When did ever Israel listen to the world?

1 sided view of the conflict. So are you claiming Hamas is innocent here? That they aren't attacking innoccent civilians?

Your responses just sound like the older sibling pointing at the younger sibling and saying, "but he was doing it too!"

To some extent someone has to stand up and be the adult in this conflict. Heavy-handed responses to Palestinian bombs hasn't ended this conflict in the past, and I see no reason that it will do so in the future. I don't have a solution to the conflict, but acting like Israeli responses of this kind are somehow part of a reasonable response aimed at ending this conflict doesn't make sense.

Thankfully, Anonymous has painted a portrait of what an adult response looks like.

You are obviously talking about Palestinians attacking innocent civilians by launching hundreds of rockets into densely populated Israeli urban areas, right?