Indeed it is. This would put the onus on Hamas to protect their civilian population if they're going to engage in warfare against Israel.
That looks a lot more deadly than a "punch in the mouth" to me. Again, it's not a lack of enthusiasm that's keeping Hamas from killing more people, it's a (fortunate) lack of weaponry.
The idea that Israel is "wrong" for using better weapons is absurd. "Put the fighter jets and tanks away, boys. These guys just have rifles so we're only allowed to use rifles to defend ourselves". The goal of Israel is to defend themselves with the least amount of Israeli deaths. This means leveraging superior weaponry just as the US did in Iraq or the NATO forces did in Libya or anyone with half a brain does anywhere. In a better world, this would act as a deterrent to Hamas but that sort of hinges on Hamas giving a shit for the civilians they're killing by subjecting them to counterattacks.
That's a joke, right? Are you demanding that Hamas get all of its soldiers and telling them to line up and duke it out with Israeli infantry? Rather than hiding behind women and firing rockets and running away, leaving the women to take the counter-attack?
Of course not. It's all Big Bad Israel. They're not fighting "fair" in their attempt to stop indiscriminate rocket attacks. Boo-fucking-hoo.
And what, exactly, is Hamas doing to help that situation with this act of warfare and using their civilian population as human shields? I mean, if that's supposed to be the valid rationale, explain to me exactly how it's helping Palestine and what the end game is from it.
It's the same reason I'm so disgusted with the US' drone program. It's some asshat playing remote control plane, and bombing intelligence targets that may or may not be littered with innocent people. If you're on the ground, have visual on the enemy, and can kill a much higher percentage of bad guys, you know, like more than 25%, then a responsible, Western backed military should do that.
The goal shouldn't be to kill as many of the other guys as you can while taking minimal losses. It should be to take out the bad guys with minimal loss of life...for both sides. Otherwise we'd drop nukes everywhere we go since it's the quickest way to flatten a warzone. We don't, because we acknowledge the mass killing of innocents that it causes.
So yes, I am saying that by having to look into the eyes of a family before deciding if you should murder them, a ground offensive is more efficient in eliminating bad guys, and not murdering kids. That's just a fact.
And this human shield bullshit is such a pathetic, tired talking point that is intellectually dishonest. So you're telling me that if a gunman is shooting at police from the middle of a crowded mall, surrounded by patrons, that any responsible officer should open fire without any regard for the surroundings? Should they lob a grenade into the middle of the crowd? "Hey, we killed the shooter!! I mean, those 25 shoppers had to die too because they were human shields, but we got us a baddie"
THIS is why I say go in on the ground, so you're not killing 4:1 civilians vs. so-called terrorists.
Killing 4:1 civilians to enemies is not acceptable anywhere else in the world, so why do you think it's OK to do it when Israel and Palestine is involved? 4:1 killed, mainly by airstrikes, 500,000 left homeless, in an area smaller than Rhode Island.
If only there were generally accepted and trusted conventions in place for treatment in a time of war, and as a member of the international community. Hell, they could name it Gene, or Eva. You know what, let's be more inclusive, let's just call it the Geneva Convention: http://itisapartheid...nationalLaw.pdf
(Don't worry, I know you won't read either one, it basically speaks on the Geneva Convention points that Israel violates)
So my last question to you: Would it be acceptable to you if someone was shooting bullets from the middle of a crowded civilian area, and to neutralize the threat, law enforcement, soldiers, whoever, threw a grenade into the middle of the crowd, or shot into it until they kill the bad guy along with several innocent bystanders? Simple question, direct comparison to what is happening in Gaza. If you think it's justified to kill a whole bunch of people to get to one, then I understand your position better and would chalk it up to being morally opposed to it. If you don't think it's OK to shoot into a crowd at a mall to kill a gunman, then I have to assume bigotry, xenophobia, bloodlust, or just an argumentative nature for your support of what Israel is doing, because there is no logical, ethical, rational excuse.