[annalex]

If one side in a conflict deliberately chooses to place its military installations in proximity to truly civilian installations, it bears the responsibility for collateral damage

That is not double effect. Double effect is what ethically allows civilian casualties if they are not intended and a targeting system is used that best avoids them. For example, if a missile site is bombed with precision and a non-combatant is unexpectedly near it, that is a legitimate collateral casualty.

I agree that Hamas bears huge responsibility, for lobbing those crude missiles at civil targets, and for mingling combatants with the civilians, but I don't think that enables Israel to bomb apartment buildings, or even nonmilitary governement buildings. They should have gone in on the ground a week ago.

[ejonesie22]

I assume you would have been opposed to the use of the atomic bombs on Japan then, and favored the loss of up to and possibly more than a Million American lives to end WWII?

Nice...

[KevinDavis]

Well maybe Hamas should stop hiding behind the civilians and actually fight the Israel out in the open.

[mnehring]

I agree that Hamas bears huge responsibility, for lobbing those crude missiles at civil targets, and for mingling combatants with the civilians, but I don't think that enables Israel to bomb apartment buildings, or even nonmilitary governement buildings.

If civilians (sic) willfully let these groups use civilian targets for storage, staging, or shields, then these targets are no longer civilian targets but military assets and the civilians in such locations are no longer civilians but part of the support infrastructure.

They should have gone in on the ground a week ago.

That would put Israel's own forces in greater danger of harm. Your first and foremost obligation is to the safety of your own troops, thus, softening your targets and removing threats to your own is your forces is your number one obligation. Having them go in as a ground assault prior to target softening puts your own troops at undue risk.

[ArrogantBustard]

That is not double effect. Double effect is what ethically allows civilian casualties if they are not intended and a targeting system is used that best avoids them.

Yes ... if the attacker is directly attacking legitimate military targets, and the defender has irresponsibly mingled them with civilian things ... the defender, not the attacker, bears responsibility for the civilian damage.

but I don't think that enables Israel to bomb apartment buildings, or even nonmilitary governement buildings

If Hamas is hiding military equipment in apartment buildings or what would otherwise be nonmilitary government buildings, Hamas (not Israel) is responsible for civilian damage resulting from attacks on those military assets.

They should have gone in on the ground a week ago.

I disagree. Modern precision bombing is intended to "decapitate" the opposing force, greatly reducing its capacity to resist an invasion. Unlike Israel's idiotic misadventure in Lebanon two years ago, I see nothing disproportionate in the current operation against Hamas in Gaza.