One  way I have heard this explained is that to not resist would be to accept the Israeli occupation.  In other words, the world has to see this resistance in order to know that Israel is forcing its will upon another people, and that those people are not willingly acquiescing to their occupation.  

Now, one might ask why this form of resistance was selected (by some members of Hamas) instead of nonviolent resistance.  Once we agree that a people has the right to defend its physical and territorial integrity against external aggression, we will see that this is essentially a tactical question regarding which course of action is most effective: one involving violence or one involving nonviolence?  

Both nonviolent and violent resistance has occurred in the course of the Palestinian struggle, and one might therefore infer that the reasons for shifting between them are tactical rather than fundamental, and also that Hamas is not a monolithic entity that is uniformly committed to a particular kind of struggle, even when facing the same conditions together at a particular point in time.

If I were to guess, I would say that certain elements of Hamas view the firing of missiles as a more visible form of resistance than the various non-violent tactics of strikes, protests, and so on, given that the occupied areas are partially cut off from the world by their occupiers. Or, maybe some of those firing the missiles are simply angry and not thinking clearly.  In a situation of breakdown and chaos caused by Israeli policies, many non-ideal responses can be expected from ordinary human beings.  If someone is being attacked in an alley, and responds by shooting the attacker in the heart, people are not likely to ask why that person did not aim for a less vital area intended to stop, rather than kill, the assailant.

One might also consider that, as a strategy, non-violence / non-cooperation depends in part upon a control system's understanding that without the cooperation of those under its control, it cannot survive, and Israel has an external sponsor (the United States) that gives it the luxury of viewing  Palestinians to some extent as an expendable population that it might possibly like to eradicate.  In such a situation, a purely non-violent strategy could be suicidal.

As for the targeting of civilians, I suspect that Hamas would prefer to attack military targets, but does not have the means to do so.  And Israel, while far from monolithic on this issue, is a highly militarized society which expresses through its democratic political processes a continuing commitment, however manipulated, favoring its aggressive actions toward the Palestinian people.  Israel has killed and injured far more civilians than combatants, and so, if one took a narrow and regional view, one might see this as a war of a people against another people.  

At a larger level, I believe that Israel's civilian populaton is manipulated by propaganda, and that Israel's aggression does not really serve the interests of civilians in that nation, but rather, only those of a small controlling elite. Furthermore, I believe that Israel is a U.S. client state, and that political attitudes within that nation are ultimately determined by U.S. policy, and that the U.S., if it changes that policy, could also change attitudes within its client.  And now we do see some signs that the emergence of global multipolarity is finally placing some additional pressure upon Israeli aggression, which the U.S. is not resisting as much, because it is finally losing its worldwide hegemony.  Obama-ism is real, not because Obama is such a good guy (sure, he is better, but why is that better guy now in charge?), but because the U.S. no longer has the ability to get its way entirely by force.

In my view, the Hamas missiles are not an ideal response, but then, what is?  The key to the region's problems presently lies outside the region, although the key to its solutions lies within it, once external control is released and the various peoples, both Israeli and Palestinian, and left to work out agreements that reflect their true interests.

Thanks for your comments, they really helped me!

Tali, the information from the CNN video fits with the timeline of the missile attacks - they went up dramatically in November after Israel made raids into Gaza.

So the missiles were not provocations, but retaliations. But there's the problem that they were fired at civilians in several Israeli cities which undermined the legitimacy of the retaliations.

Maybe Hamas didn't realize that an operation on the scale of  "Cast lead" was a risk. Maybe they really thought they could deter Israel with their missiles and mortars, and get a better cease fire agreement. Hindsight is always 20-20.

G.L, thanks for explaing about Lebanon too, and for the link.

Your arguments make good sense to me. The Palestinians are in a dilemma, if they retaliate in the primitive way they can it's ethically wrong, and if they don't retaliate, it's unbearable.

When there's no real forum for negotiating and settling disputes, the weapons will do the retarded dialogue, and the Palestinians will be punished disproportionally every time.

Hey,

  I think Tali said it pretty well - the Israeli government broke the ceasefire and provoked the attack in many ways - 1) a blockade that was strangling Gaza 2) still waging war on Hamas (and all Palestinians) in the West Bank and 3) most directly related to this - attacked Hamas during the American elections when nobody was paying attention and then went in on a full scale invasion obviously timed right before Israeli elections and the transition of one American president to another, using Hamas's relatiatory fertlizer homemade rockets as an excuse. 

  Many people (including Iran) view Hizbollah as one of the few deterrents to total Israeli and western control and aggression in Lebanon and the Middle East - it's no surprise why many people, including the Revolutionary Guard, would back them, and why Nasrallah of Hizbollah is a hero among even Sunni Muslims all over the world.  The last Israeli-Lebanese war of 06 was widely seen as one of the few Arab blows to the IDF, and it did not start with Hizbollah lobbing rockets into Israel - that came afterwards.  Here's something Chomsky's said about Nasrallah (to lazy to google): http://www.zmag.org/blog/view/1798

 I believe in non-violence as a tactic and don't like to see any civilians on any side killed, so I think rockets/"suicide" attacks, besides being ethically wrong, aren't productive and give Israel's actions some international legitamacy , but on the other hand I'm not being occupied (in such a brutal way) and having my family killed and many will rightfully say that Israel has easily plowed over any non-violent Palestinian protests and actions/movements/elections, and Hamas and Hizbollah are some of the only obstacles in the way of Israel carrying on with total impunity. 

Hey Leif,
Hamas DID NOT provoke this attack. The ceasefire that they completely adhered to, was constantly disrupted by Israeli “retaliation operations”. The Hamas’ last straw was when Israel came in, killing 6 combatants (I actually typed “Israel started it” into Google, to find this link!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDBiycEz12s )

Hamas actually said they didn’t foresee such a brutal attack and with good reason. Israel usually keeps its “retaliations” small and out of the press. A few farmers shot here, a focused airstrike there… you know… little things. This was a surprise to everyone, including us radicals at the left (who tend to be prophets of doom, in general).

The reason they shoot such measly rockets is because that’s what they got, and when you’re fighting for your life, you do what you can.

Can’t help you on the Iran/Hezbollah issue, sorry :)

Tali