<The fact remains when Israel kills civilians with its counterterrorist actions it regrets it. Civilians were NOT the specific target. A terrorist on the other hand specifically targets civilians.

Nice qualifier, but even stating they “were NOT the specific” targets still sums them up as “targets”.

So -- when the Hamas blow up a commuter bus loaded with 14 civilians (regardless of sex/age) and 1 soldier, it should then be regarded as a justified military target? Perhaps we should send the Department of Defense to your house so you can rewrite their benighted “rules of engagement” We could then do away with such inconveniences as:

* requiring eye-on-target identification
* territorial/geographic restraints which determine access to another nation (i.e. Palestine), which is always unauthorized except in cases of “hot pursuit”

The principle of necessity clearly states that the application of armed force in a self-defense scenario requires that a “hostile act occur” (i.e., a hostile attack of force applied to another), or that a force/terrorist unit “exhibit hostile intent” (i.e., apply a threat of the imminent use of deadly force upon another). There is no gray area here, and in either event, the right would then exist for the attacked to use proportional force, including armed resistance, in self-defense, by all necessary means available, in order to deter and/or neutralize the attacker, or, if necessary, to destroy the attacking threat.

Well, Israel was apparently not under any attack at the time of the strike -- but Palestine sure was. Israel’s attack was without hostile provocation, carried out in the dead of night upon a sleeping -- albeit likely heavily guarded -- community that included several civilian noncombatants. The very existence of “several civilian noncombatants” precludes any use of deadly force -- “any use” -- provided the attackers are not fitting the “hostile act” and “hostile intent” descriptions above. They were not. In fact, the attack, conducted in the “dead of night” virtually guarantees that a large number of children would be involved in the casualty list. As such, this was not a target of opportunity. This was not a workable scenario. What this was, was an aggressive act of war by the state of Israel conducted against the state of Palestine, not against the Hamas, and not against Salah Shehadeh.

Hindsight? Sure. This hindsight litters the history books, and so is easily determined as common sense to a military strategist.

There is no regret at the loss of innocent lives because their deaths were the intention of the attack. Why some people can't grasp this very clear and simple distinction is beyond me.

I'm sure there is some regret somewhere in all Palestine that any of this happened at all, and it is even possible for this same regret to be found among members of the Hamas. What I don't really get is how some people know, without question, that this regret is absent. I've never been psychic, so this is very interesting for me.

Maybe this will help: There is a very big deal being made about this air strike because it DID kill civilians. Now imagine if Israel had not been targeting a terrorist responsible for hundreds of murders! Imagine if Israel just decided to kill all those civilians for no other reason than because they were Palestinian. Now imagine if Israel did this on a near daily basis for YEARS. Specifically targeting innocent women and children who had nothing to do with the armed conflict. Do you think anyone with even the slightest sense of moral decency would approve of that tactic??? Would THAT be the moral equivalent of this air strike???

Yes. It was an immoral attack, plain and simple.

Try this one, Buck:
Shehadeh was surrounded by civilian noncombatants. He was, therefore and at that time, not a viable target.

Get that into your thought processes before you start spouting how moral you are. Taking him out with a missile strike was the height of illegal, and the height of immorality. If it was not, then Israel would be free to call in missile strikes on every potential leader's supposed location, regardless of where that happens to be, or who he happens to have around him. Anywhere, anytime.

That is called terrorism.

Israel was wrong in carrying out this air strike, but it still not the equivalent of the Passover massacre earlier this year.

It was a dead ringer.

Maybe Israel should do something like what the US did in the Gulf War: drop leaflets throughout Palestinian territory saying that anyone living near a terrorist does so at their own risk.

But -- that would be moral...

Dan