That is only known after the fact.

So let me get this straight. Israel has enough intel to confirm that, not only are the Palestinians building a particular tunnel underground, but that particular tunnel is going to extend under the Israeli border (which it hadn’t yet) and was going to be used to kidnap one more Israeli soldier (instead of being used to move materials and people around Gaza itself, which is what the vast majority of the tunnels are for).

However, the Israeli military was not supposed to understand that the Gazans who have been under blockade for YEARS, didn’t have anti-air defenses, anti-tank defenses, bomb bunkers, etc.

by Hamas resumption of fire directed only at civilians.

You think you can keep constructing this house of cards that doesn’t collapse into overt racism? Every time Israel attacks, you assume the target is a viable military target. Every time the Palestinians attack, you assume the target is unequivocally a civilian target.

You don’t apply the same rules to both sides, Witty. The Israelis have military personnel dispersed throughout their settlements, especially those near Palestinian land. If you’re going to assume the presense of even one Hamas or Hezbollah militant makes an entire neighborhood subject to military attack, then you must apply the same rules to Israeli settlements.

Or else, your argument reduces to nothing more than racism.

That is only known after the fact.

That is why it is called revisionism. It was known that Hamas could not fight an overt war against Israel. But, the assertion by Hamas that they were skilled at and prepared to conduct widespread ambushes was plausible, and Israel’s military preparation was designed to minimize ground damages to IDF.

It was big decisions by both Hamas and the IDF, decisions with enormous steps in consequences.

BOTH, but again started (or even just giving IDF credibility) by Hamas resumption of fire directed only at civilians.

If you read back, I am talking about the question of what is rational, justifiable defense. I don’t know if Goldstone agreed with your assessment of what is rational and legal defense in the context. I don’t think he did, from the summaries that I’ve read here. I think he acknowledged that a larger scale effort was relevant, legal, given the circumstances of escalated shelling on civilians (the initiation of war, as distinct from skirmish).

And they continue to attack Shingo – bored teenage girls operating playstations …oops I meant machine gun turrets on the Gaza border.

“IDF’s newest heroes: Women spotters on Gaza border”
link to haaretz.com

This is, I presume, how 90+ Gazans were killed in the 12 months following the Gaza Massacre – during the same period that not a single Israeli was killed by Gazan action.

We saw from the recent Iraq wikileaks video (where cameras were mistaken for weapons) how well war by remote control goes. I don’t see anything even vaguely heroic about shooting basically *everything* which, if you read Goldstone, were the rules of engagement Israel employed in Gaza.

Witty has insisted that Hamas should have sucked it up and offered the other cheek. Would you expect Israel to do the same under thf same circumstances?