I'm curious, David. If "terrorists" were hiding in Bikur Cholim Hospital in Jerusalem - firing from the windows at civilians on the street - would you blow up the hospital with Jewish-Israeli patients being used as human shields there?

Good point, Jeremy -

I would like to hear justification for using White Phosphorus knowing that children will suffer from the burns and destroying UN buildings.  

Why is Israel still allowing settlements to be built in the West Bank when they know the land belongs to the Palestinians?  Was the war in Gaza just a diversion so that people would stop noticing the settlements?

Jeremy, that scenario has been dealt with by The Magnes Zionist and with great scrutiny too. Ultimately Israel's apologists really cannot answer that straight because it exemplifies what we all know: they value Israeli Jewish life more than Palestinian (or Arab). It's rather sickly.I admit that this is reasonably sound IF you remove every context that precedes the rocket fire and ANY, absolutely ANY reference to an economic blockade that Israel is the architect of. I can bet that if the logic is just twisted, switch roles and see how many preconditions for resistance an Israeli, or anyone, for that matter, is willing to handcuff themselves with.

Now there isn't anything wrong with wanting to stop the Qassams, but did Israel really exhaust every option available to them to counter such an attack? I really doubt they did. In fact, they just remained belligerent and maintained the "diet" for Gazans and expect everything to be rosy. Or perhaps they wanted to do this the whole time (since this operation was planned months in advance and even prior to the ceasefire).

Jeremy,

Regarding your example to David, if I may answer.

The former is a hostage situation, and in this case, for example Entebbe Israeli commandos rescued the hostages.

In Gaza, the locals elected Hamas to represent them and willingly support them and let them hide in hospitals and mosques, therefore they are responsible for the outcome of that cooperation with terrorists. You can't have it both ways. This is not the same situation at all.

Mary, as far as phosphorus, they were used as flares to illuminate the battle field and save children, not as a weapon and if you read otherwise those are lies.

Joshua, "did Israel exhaust every option" how about waiting three years while over 11,000 rockets and mortars are launched daily on your cities, forcing millions to live in shelters. Then repeatedly negotiating with Hamas, then warning Hamas, this is more than any country I know would do, why this double standard, one for Israel and one for the rest of the world?

I am sure the USA in a similar situation would have blasted this little annoying enclave to smithereens long time ago, so would France, Britain or any other Western country. 

The relation between the non-combatants in the hospital and the "terrorists" is irrelevant - the point is, you have demonstrated that Israel CAN avoid civilian deaths - yet they choose not to. 

They're still non-combatants, and unless you ask each of them individually, you have no idea how much they support or oppose the presence of the Hamas militants - no idea at all - and simply because some non-combatants have supported them before is NO reason to condemn others to death. Especially children... consider how many shelters, UN ones at that, which have suffered child casualties - how could they possibly be responsible for the militants that hide with them??? I'm sorry, but that is the weakest and most ridiculous thing you've said so far.


Regarding White Phosphorous - IDF commanders themselves have admitted to using the weapon and differentiating the shells from the flares. I'm afraid you're just spinning propoganda again. They weren't galiantly saving children as you so poetically put it. What a joke. To insist that white phosphorus is not being used is to imply that the UN (an organization based in neutrality), International Red Cross/Red Crescent (another neutral and humanitarian organization), as well as countless other philanthropic aid organizations and reporters from all over the world are involved in an incredibly complex and well coordinated, covert effort to aid Hamas in propoganda. I really laughed out loud. 

"I am sure the USA in a similar situation would have blasted this little annoying enclave to smithereens long time ago, so would France, Britain or any other Western country."

Why do pro-Israel hawks always insist on flawed comparisons such as these? I don't want to get into EVERY missing detail that Michael has conveniently left out because that would just be too big a comment. I guess I would narrow it to what Gershom Gorenberg stated on CBC radio a few weeks back:

"I'm surprised that there hasn't been more violence from the Palestinians."

Israel exhausted every option? Negotiated with Hamas? I did not do that; it mediated through Egypt and it still did not (a) ease the blockade (b) open talks with Hamas (c) cease extrajudicial killings of Hamas leaders in the West Bank (d) cease air, sea and land violations of the Gaza Strip and (e) cease the occupation. You speak as if that these rockets were independent of Israel's occupation policy towards the Palestinians in particular. Things didn't change for Gazans or West Bankers, in fact, they got worse. Little wonder that the rockets just re-emerged when Israel bombed the Gaza Strip on Nov. 4.

In perspective, it's not a double standard for Israel. Israel claims to be what it is not and that's where most of its criticism gets highlighted. The actions speak ALOT louder than words here. If Israel stated that this was their intention (and MANY of their leaders do, re: Ethan Bronner "the boss has gone mad") then they would find themselves on par with murderous regimes like Mugabe and Suharto and Pinochet and such and such."Millions" to live in shelters? Considering the Gaza Strip is a condensley populated area that holds 1.5 million, you really stretched that number.

I also find it very disturbing that you conflate anyone connected with Hamas to get what they deserve (some white phosporous). That's rather earth-shattering, if I had not heard that type of asinine talk before.

Imagine if Hamas said something akin to that to their foe? Double standard?

Guys, guys you have not been under mortar or rocket shells I can tell, so please don't judge Israel unless you have been their.

Israel has the right to self defense with all the power and means available, as Colin Powell so eloquently said, always respond to the enemy with overwhelming power.

I say again, Israel's response relative to what other Western democracies have and would have done under similar circumstances was moderate, very moderate, and those countries stating otherwise are hypocrites.

Good thing I'm not a state and that Colin Powell is not the end all authority. 

To bend your ethics under pressure is what the "enemy" wants. Your idea of self-defense is excessive. YOU've given one example of a myriad of ways that Israel CAN defend itself (I never said they shouldn't) - ways that are less violent, yet they choose not too. When devastating the enemy 100 fold (especially civilians and their resources) you lose your victim status and your right to call self-defense. Once you've become the enemy - they've won. 

You say the response is comparable to the response of other nations - but more nations live in peace and settle problems more peacefully than there are nations that do what you do. Land disputes, religious disagreements, lawlessness - are all settled in other peaceful means than violence. History doesn't record instances of non-violence because it's so obviously true and prevalent in the way we humans work. You point out other instances of violence as justification, but you forget that history is a track record of where we humans deviate from our natural "way." 

Your idea of self defense is like a robber with a gun coming to your house (maybe day after day - maybe even kills a family member of yours) - you shoot him - I wouldn't - but that's legal where I'm from. It's not legal, or ethical, to later find his home with family and friends and kill all of them too to make sure it never happens again. 

You'll say that the circumstances are different where you are, etc etc... but the truth is the FUNDAMENTAL laws that govern how human beings human beings operate belong to all human beings - analogies CAN be drawn. The Gazans are no different, FUNDAMENTALLY than the robber. The ethics you use to rationalize your attacks on Gaza are parallel to the ethics of the robbed man - hunting the robber's friends and family. Excessive.

You blame me for not knowing what it feels like to have my neighborhood under rocket and mortar fire. You claim that I live too far away to know what's going on - the fact is my distance is what gives me the advantage. I can see the whole picture - you're blinded by mortar shells. My ethics aren't the ones being criticized. I'm not the one with blood on my hands and you can try to blame me for "allowing" deaths but I've told you and others time and time again that I don't condone the violence committed by Hamas or anytone - I'm not preaching inaction and pacifism - It's non-violent Action, Satyagraha which is much more and what I expect from every human being under any circumstances. 

Just war is largely a Catholic concept, started with St. Augustine and furthered by St. Thomas Aquinas. According to their ideas, the Gaza war is not just. The better question is this: was Israel correct in invading Gaza? If the intention was to stop the rockets, then I can see the argument, although Israel did wait quite a while for such an attack--apparently this war had been planned for close to two years. If the intention was to protect its citizens, then under any nation state law, Israel has that undeniable right. Yet the war did not stop rockets, Israel is not safe from suicide bombers and now many in the world loathe Israel, calling her a bloodthirsty monster. Israelis abroad have to answer for their government, just like Americans had to answer for the Iraqi War. Anti-semitic attacks have increased in Europe in America. Israel is not Judaism, but many are not bothering to make that distinction. Whatever Israel's intention may have been and no matter how just it may appear to others,  many of the dead are civilians which in just war theory is anathema. And even children were shot at close range. One can defend Israel's right to survive as I do; I cannot condone a war that even killed zoo animals along with civilians--some of those animals were killed the Sunday before the cease fire. The Israel that fought the Gaza War is unknown to me.

Just a quickie: "Just War Theory" might well be Catholic in origin. But Judaism has struggled mightily with this question, without much connection to the Augustinian concept.

The rabbis struggled with Joshua's conquering of Canaan, with the demand to not take captives (kill) and destroy cattle instead of taking booty, and with the deception that often takes place on the part of the good guys in order to win.

I'm glad that the conversation around the justification of the war goes beyond contemporary concerns, even when I disagree with someone's argument.

Oh, I would say the concept of a just war goes back to the beginning of conflict in general. No one will go to war or act in violence towards someone unless they think they are right in doing so. Justification is ALWAYS found in the eyes of those who wage violence. No need to blame our catholic brothers and sisters for the origination of the good vs. evil argument - despite how easy it is after reviewing the history of crusades and inquisition. The idea of good and evil was present in our primal ancestors who viewed the night, a blinding, cold and inhospitable force overcoming the day every 24 hours which brought them illumination, warmth and life. 

Other than that, I agree with you. The idea of justice has proceeded every war. The victors record their reasons and forget those of the enemies. Despite how vicious Nazi Germany was, we forget how much we devasted and humiliated them after the first world war - planting the seeds for future violence. 

There were wars long before Christ was born - Egypt vs Rome vs Greece, etc.   I am also against the wars that the US currently are in.

Israel claims that 7,500 rockets were shot via Hamas in the Gaza yet 4 Israeli deaths in 2008 - there is something wrong with those numbers!   Shooting rockets into the sand is not a justification for a war killing and destroying so many innocent lives.   There were 275 murders in Chicago alone in 2008 yet no one believes that justifies a war.I do believe that if any American state had the sanctions and limits on their lives that the Palestinians in Gaza have (and lack of rights in the West Bank) then you would see a revolt.  The sanctions that Israel has on the Gaza are inhumane and forces Palestinians to live like prisoners with no right to earn a living. 

If Israel wanted peace, they would get out of the West Bank and lift all sanctions against GAZA - including letting Palestinians fish and travel freely.  I see Israel as a bully.  Many in the US are afraid to say anything against Israel since they think they will be thought of as anti-semetic - I am so glad to hear Obama saying Muslim finally.

One more point:  Only 43% of Palestinians voted for Hamas - why are 100% of the people held accountable?  I did not vote for George Bush - hated that he won and was totally against going to Iraq before we did.    I would not want someone killing me, my family members, or destroying my house for what Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld did.

Charles and All,  I only mentioned the Just War theory because of the title of the article. King David in his psalms often questioned the rightness of war, yet he did fight his enemies. He paid a terrible price in seeing his own son die, not by his choice, but by the result of war itself. In short, when war is raging and the unintended targets happen to die, it no longer matters how just the war was in the original concept. When innocents die, justice has not been done.

I agree with Mary above: I never supported Bush who I think should be tried for war crimes, and I grew so tired of being equated with him because it seemed that my country chose him in a landslide. In that, I see her point and second it in her comparison to the Palestinian people. And I would wager that a good portion of those who elected Hamas, did not support all that they did. Even if the 43 percent were Hamas cheerleaders, it doesn't excuse the point blank killing of children by Israeli soldiers, the slaugher of animals and the use of banned weapons against civilians. Nor does it excuse turning Gaza into a prison camp where people starved and lived without basic comforts.

If it is all about quid pro quo, Hamas did not affect the standard of living for the average Israeli prior to the war. And I don't defend Hamas and its crimes; I just think the average Israeli had cooking gas, electricity, food and medicine.