The crime is when Hamas doesn't conform to the Laws of Armed Conflict, by conducting their military activities in close proximity to residential areas and protected areas, such as schools and hospitals. Hamas either doesn't regard human life with the same value or Hamas deliberately used civilian casualties to try to demonise the IDF's conduct. Either way, the only crime I can see anyone attribute to Israel is that Israel expected Hamas to fight by the rules and not hide behind civilians.
How HAMAS was supposed to fight away from civilians?As i wrote above Gaza strip is 6x41 km and overpopulated.Civilians had no exit,borders with Egypt were closed and the Airfield was bombed in 2001 ,the port had Israeli patrol even humanitarian aid from Cyprus wasnt allowed to reach it and the boat was rammed.If you wanted to see them in fight by the book they should go into Gaza on foot to reduce collateral loses not use artillery and airforce.
I don't want to see anyone fight at all if I have any say in the matter. But this thread is in danger of heading in the same direction as that conflict: both sides consider themselves right and hell will freeze over before either will make meaningful compromises. I'm not about to go ahead and do that here; I'm here as an aviation enthusiast. There are other places to argue the more detailed politics of the Middle East.
As an aviation enthusiast I will only talk to any subjects that involve military aviation aspects in as far as this topic goes. What an Israeli naval patrol reportedly did with regard to blocking a shipment that allegedly carried humanitarian aid is, in my opinion, outside of the scope of this thread that Eldorado started.
It is true that it would be hard for Hamas to avoid fighting anywhere near populated areas. Yes, the Gaza strip is small, and parts are densely populated, but this in itself is no excuse. What I am referring to is the use of hospitals and schools from which Hamas conduct their operations. This is what is considered unlawful according to the Law of Armed Conflict. These locations are protected and must be respected by both sides of the conflict.
Civilians are going to die in any conflict. That is what a war does. As cruel as it sounds, this is lawful and legal in a conflict. Deaths of civilians are lawful in war when the military value of an engaged target exceeds the loss of life as a result of collateral damage. If a senior Hamas leader is in a car with his son, but the Hamas leader is crucial to activities conducted against Israelis, Israel is within their right to destroy that car with a missile, regardless of the innocent life that may be taken in that process. This is what LOAC is all about: using only the force that is necessary to achieve an objective, and only if the collateral damage is less than the value of the target.
Hamas members may live in the same places as other people. This is where precision munitions come into play. Again, the weapon used will be the one that best engages the target with the least probability for collateral damage.
There were reports that a lot of the people killed in that conflict were children. What the western world deems to be a child (under 18 years of age) is different than what is considered old enough to be an adult in the Arab culture. Kids as young as 12 are old enough to know how to hold, aim and shoot the universally recognised AK47 assault rifle. What were the statistics given about these so-called "children" then? How old were they, and under what circumstances were they killed?
Sterotypes westerns created,offcourse you will find pics of children holding guns but thats not how the majority of Palestinians is.Most children use slingshots and rocks instead of the universally recognised AK.
I agree; if the majority of Palestinians carried Kalatchnikovs I think there's a really big problem! But if you read what I wrote above, I'm not stereotyping what a Palestinian is like, I am just pointing out that the universally accepted age of a child in the western world is below the age of 18. I'm then comparing that to how in the Arab world a child becomes an adult at a much earlier age. In their culture it may not be out of place for a person under the age of 18 to be active as an adult in society and regarded as such. Whilst in the western world it would be an outrage to have persons under the age of 18 fight in a conflict, it may not be the case in other cultures.
Anyway Israel in January gave birth to the next generation of those who you call terrorists.If they wanted peace they would have achieve it,if they wanted to get rid of HAMAS they could decap their leadership with Mossad.
I'm not quite sure where you want to head with this. I will avoid getting into the politics of the matter, as I have stated earlier. All I will respond to here is that the decision on how to engage a target is up to the commander. I cannot speculate what the commander intended as objectives for this conflict. It is possible that Hamas has learned to avoid being found by Mossad. I would venture than after decades of having leaders assassinated only the smarter ones survive! Both sides have been playing this "game" for a while now, and both are very good at it.
If a Hamas leader cannot be identified and located, the commander will determine what other courses of action are available to him in order to achieve his intent. Yes, it is possible that sending in troops might have led to fewer civilian casualties, but this will also have caused more casualties with the troops. This, again, is something that must be weighed against its value.
Back to Index
Move to Top 
