Israel, it's about time!

[Mourhelm]

No Hamas should put their rockets away from the people, there is a huge difference.

Good point, I stand corrected. However, since Hamas already put the rockets in houses, it should at the very least take the population to shelters or areas less likely to be hit (places without weapon depots).

People stay at their homes since they have nowhere to go. Even if they are aware of there being rockets in their vicinity they have nowhere to go... They can't simply go "away" since they don't have anywhere to seek shelter.

I disagree. Not every house has rockets in it. Another possible location they can go to is their hospital.

You talk a lot about this humanitarian aid, I am curious of how much of it there is and who it reaches. I read earlier today that Israel isn't even letting replacement surgeons from the Red Cross into Gaza (they've been waiting to be let in since before the ground forces entered Gaza).

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...ryof9Modw5q9Gg

That's one example.

Edit: hitting enemy troops knowing that civilians will be killed as well is not much different from targeting civilians directly.

It is very different. Hamas knows that it's the target. It should protect its civilians and not use them as human shields.

Also, when Israel knows for sure that there will be many civilian casualties, it doesn't attack.

You did read the Geneva quote I posted right? Let me refresh your memory... "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria."

You cannot say that civilians of a certain nationality are any more worthy of protection than others... Civilians are civilians, they are not part of this conflict and the killing of them is an Israeli war crime.

I didn't say that Palestinian civilians are less worthy of protection. I said that the responsibility for protecting them is on the other side - Hamas's side.

If these civilians were behind our soldiers they would protect them to the best of their ability and would not use them as human shields.

If the intent was to kill them, I would agree that it is a war crime. As I said before, if Israel wanted to kill them, it could do so in a few hours and with a lot less losses.

I am sure that most people would not be so outraged if civilians were killed in closed military facilities in which only Hamas soldiers are living and over which Hamas has full control, such are legitimate targets in my opinion. What Israel is doing is bombing bus stations where a Hamas soldier has a few rockets.

If the bus station has a military purpose (launching rockets) it is a military target.

Everywhere that Hamas situates its rockets and weaponry is a military facility.

If Israel would fire it's artillery from a city, would you call that a civilian target as well? Will you condone Hamas for targeting it?

I used worse because it was a comparison of two acts and one of them was the worst action...

Worse = more bad than something.
Worst = more bad than anything.

It does not matter what goal the Israeli military claims it has, what matters is the effects of this military operation and that is pure terror.

There is no more terror in this action than in any other war.

I get my information from a Swedish newspaper called Dagens Nyheter, The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Times. Where do you get yours by the way?

Israeli and foreign media (in English). When I quote things here I try to refrain from using Israeli sources.

Here's an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSUSoPrICqQ

I used starved in the sense that the people in gaza were being deprived of a great deal of resources and goods. That all of gaza would run out of flour this quickly even with rationing shows how little there was available in the first place.

If Hamas didn't use all its money to buy weaponry the Palestinians wouldn't have to rely on humanitarian aid.

This is interesting, first you say that people should just leave (again without consideration for the fact that your military forces civilians to leave their homes and all their possessions, trading their previous lives for a future with a very uncertain life expectancy in a literal war zone... but I think I covered that earlier)

If the Palestinians wouldn't allow Hamas to store rockets in their homes they wouldn't need to go anywhere.

If I used my house to store lots of bombs in my basement I would know that there is a risk that I'll lose my house, my possessions and my life (because my house just became a legitimate military target). The Palestinians knows that too.

and then you say that they can't leave because Hamas doesn't let them?

I meant that some of those that want to leave danger zones are forced to stay and act as human shields for Hamas.

Anyway, all of Gaza is a danger zone, and the borders are closed.

Again, Not every house has rockets in it.

I don't really see how sending troops into "harms way" would prevent retaliation, I think you'll have to rephrase that.

I didn't said soldiers, I said children ("your son"). If you could use your child as a human shield for your army, would you do it?

Anyway if I were at war and if I had the authority to decide such things I would very carefully weigh the consequences of all attacks that my military forces took part in. I would also consider the military threat of the enemy compared to the civilian damage and casualties that the retaliatory strikes could result in. I would not allow attacks that risk killing as many civilians as enemies when the enemy's military threat does not require that.

I would do the same.

In this case there is clearly no great threat.

Try living in terror for eight years and then talk to me again. You have a problem with threat assessment.

Anyway I would probably also want to use more precise methods than bombing enemies and civilians alike.

At what cost? If I told you that you can kill a civilian and a terrorist without losses or kill just the terrorist and lose 100 of your friends, what will you choose?

If I told you that you can kill a civilian and a terrorist without losses or kill just the terrorist and lose ten of your friends, what will you choose?

Israel considers the cost and effect. In the recent war against Hezbollah Israel used infantry instead of air-strikes to reduce the risk of civilian casualties. We had a lot more losses in soldiers in these cases, but the price in civilian deaths (in Lebanon) was too high to just bomb the place.

If we didn't want to use more precise methods we wouldn't bother with a ground attack. We would have just bombed Gaza all over. It is much safer for our soldiers.

That is a very invalid point. Hamas doesn't have any claim, the civilians which are killed, wounded and driven from their homes do however.

You hear what you want to hear. The question was about the legality of Israeli actions. These actions are legal self defense.

You want me to find your arguments for you? I feel pretty sure that there is nothing to that effect stated in the Geneva convention, if you feel otherwise I encourage you to find it.

Miss quoting me is silly...

I will take the time to look for it later (I'm kinda busy now and I need to reformat my computer).