When did it become OK to kill human shields?

Bullshit. Hamas is notorious for hiding out among civilians not to protect themselves but, rather, to encourage Israelis to create some "collateral damage." It's their way of making the Israelis look bad in the world press and encourage discussions that head in the direction you're headed in with this thread. Hamas and the Islamic Brotherhood and the rest of those mass murderers know quite well they cannot win in a contest of arms with Israel. So they use the psychological tools available.

I'm sorry but this is one issue where I part company with most of my friends here on A2k. In my opinion -- which I do not consider humble -- Israel has every right to exist as a state and to take any steps its leadership deems necessary to protect itself from extinction, which, after all, is the goal of Hamas and the PLO and every other Islamic entity in the Levant. It is unfortunate that innocent civilians get killed as a result of acts which are no more than self-defensive. But, in the long run, the responsibility and blame rests with the aggressor, not the defender.

If I'm going to lose some friends as a result of this stand, so be it. That, too, is unfortunate but it's where I stand on this issue.

That's a nonsensical argument. The United States exists at the expense of the indigenous American people, the so-called Indians. Why don't we white folks and the Africans whose ancestors we imported just get the hell out? The Jews have a far better claim on the territory of Israel than Europeans do on the North and/or South American continents. Unless, of course, you want to argue that Abraham and his people had no right to dispossess the Philistines and Cananites somewhere around 3,ooo b.c.e. to begin with. But that's a different argument from saying that Jews of the 20th Century had no right to return from the Diaspora and reclaim their ancient homeland.

You're agreeing with Miller?

The rhetoric supporting Israel's brutal war is beyond any reason.

Destroying your home's and livelihoods of civilians is morally wrong, telling you beforehand that they are going to destroy your home doesn't change that.

Killing women and children is morally wrong. Labeling these women and children "human shields" before they kill them doesn't change the fact that it is morally wrong. Accusing the enemy of acting immorally themselves still doesn't change the fact that it is morally wrong to kill women and children.

Trapping nearly 2 million people including women, children and innocent civilians, based only on their ethnicity, in a small strip of land that you have under siege that is cut off from the world is morally wrong.

The only justification for this brutal action seems to be "Hey.... Hamas is doing horrible immoral things, so we can too".

Sorry, I don't buy it.

I only wish the someone had the courage to put an end to America's part in this shameful war.

I'm sorry but this is one issue where I part company with most of my friends here on A2k.

Israel is acting in a way I find morally reprehensible.

They should be held accountable in the world press, and yes that means they should look bad.
Immoral acts should be portrayed as immoral. That is the best way to stop them from happening.

The phrase you used, "any steps the leadership deems necessary to protect itself from extinction" is a key part of what I am talking about. Any steps? That is an awfully big catchphrase that encompasses an huge amount of acts. This logic can be used to justify anything no matter how brutal (and maybe it has).

Should every country decide to do any action, no matter how immoral, that the leadership deems necessary to protect itself from extinction?

The idea that the present Israeli action in Gaza, and the thousands of deaths that are resulting is necessary to prevent Israel's extinction is ridiculous.

As is the argument that the deaths from Israeli bullets and bombs are all Hamas' fault.

This morally empty argument since it is clear that if Israel wasn't acting in this way, these deaths would not be happening.

There are two partners in the immoral dance.

Those are awfully empty words.

Israel does not "target" civilians? How does that make any moral difference?

The fact is that this Israeli military action is killing hundreds of civilians.

This bellicose rhetoric can be used to justify any brutal act, but it fails.

Saying that Hamas is also morally reprehensible doesn't justify the actions of this brutal Israeli action.

What Israel is doing is morally reprehensible.

Are you willing to use these justifications of violence by Israel to justify acts of violence in other conflicts.
For example, the people who shot down Malaysia airlines flight 17 were clearly not targeting civilians. Their aim was to shoot down Ukrainian military planes, not Malaysian airliners.
Does this mean that they are not responsible for these deaths?
If you are really arguing based on principle, that principle should apply in any conflict.

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Israel has every right to exist as a state...

Why?

The United States has offered the remaining Native Americans full citizenship with the right to vote.

I also strongly reject the mythical justification of Israel's occupation. The fact is that the Palestinians too have ancestors that were living in Israel for just as long as the Jews.... in fact genetic studies show they share the same ancient ancestors.
The world will be a better place when we stop using mythology to justify our actions.

This article is entitled "Does Hamas Want Israel To Kill Their Children?" If I understand the argument correctly, it is claiming that Israel is not morally accountable for killing children because Hamas wants them to.

An Israeli army officer who repeatedly shot a 13-year-old Palestinian girl in Gaza dismissed a warning from another soldier that she was a child by saying he would have killed her even if she was three years old.
The officer, identified by the army only as Captain R, was charged this week with illegal use of his weapon, conduct unbecoming an officer and other relatively minor infractions after emptying all 10 bullets from his gun's magazine into Iman al-Hams when she walked into a "security area" on the edge of Rafah refugee camp last month.

A subsequent investigation by the officer responsible for the Gaza strip, Major General Dan Harel, concluded that the captain had "not acted unethically".

So much for Israeli ethics.
However, the military police launched an investigation, which resulted in charges against the unit commander.

Iman's parents have accused the army of whitewashing the affair by filing minor charges against Captain R. They want him prosecuted for murder.