A bombing campaign designed to decapitate and soften legitimate targets is fine; bombing apartment buildings because there might be something of military nature in them is just an excuse for bombing civilians.
So, Hamas can stick a rocket launcher at a site, put up a sign that says Shady Brook Apartments, move their family in, and it isn't a military target? Maybe a rocket launcher isn't enough, what if they put an ammunition dump inside said apartment? What if they used said apartment as their headquarters for attack? When does said apartment become a legitimate military target in your mind?
If you don’t think that military manufacturing assets (factory workers) are legitimate targets, then I don’t believe we will ever find a converging point in this debate.
bombing apartment buildings because there might be something of military nature in them is just an excuse for bombing civilians.
"Might be" or "has been determined to be"?
Those are two very different things.
M:
Those decisions should be left to military commanders in field or whom have the correct intel and information to make that decision, not to arm-chair philosophers.
Since the IAF/IDF is conducting the current operation, it is somewhat academic to me. However, the USAF/USA/USN/USMC have conducted similar operations; to the extent that they were being conducted in my name and on my behalf (as a tax-paying citizen of these United States) it certainly is within my prerogative to discuss and critique their decisions ... even if I'm only an "arm-chair philosoper". In a Republic, the military acts to enforce the policies of the civilian government, is subordinate to the civilian government, and must obey the directives (including rules of engagement) of the civilian government.
Fortunately, the USA is a Republic. Israel is one as well.