And of course killing the leader of Hamas would lead to even more Palestinian violence whether or not any civilians were killed: Which in this case they were.

But I still don't think this rises to the level of a war crime.

There are many who would like to define all military action as war crimes.

Civilian casualties are to be expected in war. Yes, they should be minimized whenever possible; but, sometimes a military target is so valuable that you must take it out no matter the cost in terms of incidental civilian casualties.

A perfect example would be if a civilian airline had been taken over and was flying toward the Sears tower. Now it might be the terrorists plan to run it into the tower, or it might not? But your flying an F-16 and someone gives you the order to fire. Are you going to second guess the command on the grounds that it might be a war crime and because you might be found guilty by the new international court?

The Palestinians need to realize that if they continue attacking civilians, then the Palestinian civilians will themselves become targets. This is not a war crime any more than the use of nuclear weapons would be considered a war crime if doing was in response to an enemy first strike. (If Sadam detonated a nuclear weapon in downtown Los Angeles and the United States responded by nuking Bahgdad would the United States response be considered a war crime because it could reasonably be expected that 500,000 civilian casualties would result?

No. Unless you think that all nuclear weapons are immoral and you should turn the other cheek.