You are wrong. At least in my case, the “repetitions” are, instead, refined arguments that you did not answer.
Just war is a goal of humans, especially for those of us who are Christians. However, the reason such discussions cause distress from even Aquinas and other historical thinkers, is because conditions and the evil of men can not be tied up in a pretty solution.
Just war theory as you have discussed it leaves out the humans who serve voluntarily or unvoluntarily as human shields. The intent and the actions should be weighed, as with the double effect in medicine.
However, in medicine the disease only assaults against one person. In war, the aggressor threatens many. The intent cannot be to harm children indiscriminately to shock the parents (as in terrorism). However, knowing that some children may be present due to the acts of the aggressor cannot halt the act of protecting one’s own children.
So many liberals miss the point of the Geneva Conventions.
The failure to give protection to "ununiformed combatants" (terrorists) and the explicit correllary (that they may be shot on sight) was not designed by military purists to arbitrarily punish terrorists for "not playing fair" and "not dressing up in soldier's duds".
But the point isn't to "protect the military" from ambush, etc. Instead, the express purpose of this convention is to protect civilians -- by punishing such tactics so severely as to make it too fatal to employ (by a civilized society).
Unfortunately, civilized societies now find themselves confronted by a foe which is not responsive to the penalties for terrorist tactics. On the contrary, it is a sub-culture that welcomes death (at least in the abstract).
Inasmuch as the success of these terrorist tactics will result in increasing risk to civilian lives in the future, it is imperative that they be defeated now! If that risks civilian lives in Gaza, so be it. Their deaths, coupled with the defeat of Hamas, will have served a larger purpose -- the defeat of terrorism and its ongoing threat to innocent civilian lives in the future.
"Disproportionate Response" is the only justifiable doctrine when fighting terrorism. It must be defeated, so as to protect the innocent -- born and unborn.
Upon reflection, I suspect the underlying thought behind the Geneva Convention is simply too deep for most liberal minds to grasp.
That is true, but the presence of enemy's children should, in justice, modify the protector's tactics. For example, he no longer may subject such area to indiscriminate aerial bombardment, has a duty to warn and give noncombatants an opportunity to escape, has a duty to use rifles rather than cannons so that to target a single person identified as combatant. Incidents such as blowing out an apartment block or a school because shots were fired from it would have been impossible.