I know that this article is one-sided, and that there are surely some nuances missing. Nonetheless, it makes the central point very clear: Israel is under attack, and has to have the right to defend itself:
Think about that: Palestinian terrorists have fired more than 8,000 rockets at Israel since its mid-2005 pullout from Gaza, along with thousands of mortar shells; even in 2011, a "quiet" year, there were 680 rocket and mortar launches, almost two a day. A million residents of Israel's south live in permanent fear, punctuated every few months by more intensive bouts of violence that, like the one in mid-March, close schools for days and empty workplaces of parents, who must stay home with their kids. In Sderot, the town closest to Gaza, an incredible 45% of children under six have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, as have 41% of mothers and 33% of fathers; these statistics will presumably be replicated elsewhere as the rockets' increasing range brings ever more locales under regular fire.
When someone tells you that Israel has no moral choice other than to end the Occupation, remind them of this. The last time Israel pulled out of an occupied region without a peace agreement already in place, this was the result.
By contrast, look at the West Bank:
where the IDF has effectively eradicated terror: Israeli fatalities originating from the West Bank fell from over 400 in 2002 to 9 in 2011; shooting attacks fell from 2,878 to 9; and not one rocket has ever been launched from there. But this was achieved only by reoccupying all Palestinian-controlled territory in 2002 and not leaving.
I'm not suggesting that it's good for Israel to be there, or that I want the occupation to continue indefinitely. My point is that when someone says that Israel has to pull out of the West Bank now, then we have to ask why we'd expect it to be any different this time?
To paraphrase, the Occupation is the worst possible thing. Except, possibly, for ending the Occupation right now.
Pray for the peace of Jersualem.