Continued: well as use of agents on the ground to a high degree of sophistication Not without a heavy cost - suspected Israeli informants were publicly executed by Hamas this week.
Despite such immense efforts, innocent civilians, including women, children and old people have been killed in Israeli air strikes. Every one of these is a tragedy. But Hamas and its terrorist bedfellows Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committee must shoulder responsibility. They deliberately place their weapons, launch sites, communication centres and leaders right in the heart of civilian areas.

Thus Israel's choice is stark: put up with terrorist missiles aimed at its civilian population, or attack and risk civilian casualties in Gaza.

What do other countries do? Turkey, faced with terrorist attacks by Kurdish separatists has repeatedly and viciously bombed what it believes to be Kurd strongholds in the sovereign territory of Iraq. Yet Turkey has been vehemently critical of Israel for taking similar - though far more discriminating - action. Many have criticised Israel for the surgical strike that killed Hamas terrorist commander Ahmed Jabari. Few levelled similar criticism against the Americans for eliminating Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan.

Diplomats are horrified that Israel might launch a ground attack against Hamas. Our Foreign Secretary has warned that international support for Israel's operations would fracture. Yet dozens of Western nations have taken part in 11 years of high intensity ground and air warfare among the civilian population in Iraq and Afghanistan since the 9/11 terror attacks. The scale is different, the principle the same.

So were the troops poised to go in? Everything I have seen shows that Jerusalem meant business. Yet, speaking to senior military and government officials, I sensed great reluctance. Rightly, too. Massed infantry, tanks and artillery are a very blunt instrument and would have led to significant civilian casualties. And ground troops are not as invulnerable as their comrades in the air.

But if the ceasefire does not result in Hamas ceasing its attacks on Israel's civilian population and its military, and an end to weapons smuggling, the IDF may have no choice.

SF says "Thus Israel's choice is stark: put up with terrorist missiles aimed at its civilian population, or attack and risk civilian casualties in Gaza."
Or may be there are other solutions.
Perhaps the Israelis could end the occupation, stop the strangulation of Gaza, remove the settlements from the West Bank and come to a just two state solution with the Palestinians.
Israel will never have peace or security whilst they occupy other peoples lands, bomb their homes, kill their children and prevent them from earning a living.

People like yourself are always defending Israeli violence whilst ignoring the occupation. That is the source of Palestinian anger and rightfully so.
If Israel was under a military occupation then I am absolutely certain the Israelis would respond with violence. In fact they did just that under the British Mandate.

Rhys, don't waste your time trying to apply logic and reason to what the Israelis do. Logic and reason are beyond them: religious derangement is their affliction and always has been.

The Israelis, like the Americans, know exactly what they are doing. They are stealing Palestine and getting rid of the Palestinians. When they conclude that ambition, they will begin to take parts of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt to create Greater Israel, a racist super-state.

The Americans do the same thing except on a world scale. It amazes me that few people are aware of what is going on and how dangerous it is for those who value freedom and human rights. The evidence is there after all.

People, you just have to open your eyes and use what brainpower you have!

SF, so you're just going to dismiss all the links I posted on the false grounds that they are from biased, anti-Israel websites.
And you're going to base your entire argument on the a couple of interviews with a British colonel.
Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. I believe I have provided much more evidence to back up my arguments than you have. If this were a trial or debate, and it stopped here, I believe the judges would grant me the victory.

Hello Fungus,

In reply to your post where you champion the ‘principle’ of proportionality, please note that while the body of international law known as “the law of war” mentions the concept of proportionality in several contexts, the concept does not appear in any international legal text, convention or treaty.

David G:

You claim I am disseminating lies, can you point to ANY of the points I raised which is untrue? It’s very easy to claim that someone is lying, but you don’t seem to have much to go on.

I’m awaiting anxiously for you to disprove any of my claims. In the meantime, let me disprove one of yours:

“The Israelis... are stealing Palestine and getting rid of the Palestinians. When they conclude that ambition, they will begin to take parts of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt to create Greater Israel, a racist super-state.”

The Israelis have withdrawn from a huge piece of land called the Sinai Peninsula. I guess they don’t want to take part of Egypt after all.
The Israelis have withdrawn from Gaza, so I guess they are not want to keep Palestinian land.
The Israelis have withdrawn from Southern Lebanon, so I guess they do not want any part of Lebanon either.
The number of Palestinian Arabs has skyrocketed over the last few decades, so they seem to be doing a very poor job of "getting rid of the Palestinians".