You don't remember what happened 5 years ago in your own country? It was literally the previous time Israel and Hamas were shooting bombs at each other. It was headline making news the whole year.

Israel took over Gaza (good on them), and then refused to allow humanitarian aid to help the civilians (bad on them) giving a B.S. political answer that they thought weapons were being smuggled in under those boats.

What was actually happening was they were angry at the Palestinians and wanted them to suffer. If they really thought there were bombs on Red Cross ships they could have searched them. But instead, they let civilians suffer and die from injuries that could have been cured.

You blame Israel for having no option to defend itself other than destroying rocket launch sites and infiltration tunnels, but Hamas are the ones trying at all costs to ensure Palestinians are killed in the cross fire. I think saying "both sides are killing civilians" is oversimplifying to the extreme.

I remember important things that happened 5 years ago, I don't remember the specifics of each claim against Israel since it is constantly bombarded with such bullshit claims.

The previous time Israel and Hamas traded blows was in 2012 in "Operation Pillar of Defense".

Weapons are constantly being smuggled into Gaza, and often under the guise of humanitarian aid, so a bullshit excuse it is not. It also makes a lot of sense that immediately after an armed conflict it would be more difficult to scrutinize every shipment on time (note how some aid was still allowed).
Is it also possible that Ehud Olmert (prime minister at the time) was not only trying to be cautious but was also a bit of an ass? It is possible (he definitely is an ass ), in this case I have no further knowledge than you so there's nothing extra for me to add other than what I've already said.
Look, it is also possible that right now Benjamin Netanyahu is also being a bit of an ass and not doing his best to resolve the situation as painlessly as possible (his own party thinks he is being too soft), however:

• If you (not any specific you here) think there is any organized Israeli effort aimed at harming palestinian civilians, you are either misinformed, deluded or racist (I'll specifically say that I don't think anyone here is deluded or racist). There are of course unorganized efforts (such as "Price tag" acts like vandalizing mosques in response to Hamas activity), which Israel tries to stop, but definitely no organized intentional effort to harm civilians.

• If you think Israel is dismissive of civilian deaths and not trying to avoid them then you are simply misinformed. As I've reiterated many times, Israel goes to great lengths the avoid such deaths.

• If you think Israel could do better then to that I can partially agree. I still hold that there is nothing further you can reasonably expect Israel to do during this war (it is definitely doing better than NATO in Afghanistan according to one guy in charge of NATO forces in Afghanistan). I will agree however, that outside the combat arena and in the political arena Israel could do better by the palestinians; As I said in the other thread, the current leadership has an interest in prolonging the conflict since that is what gets them votes, though I still think that if there was a reasonable resolution for the conflict in sight then they'd have taken it. (And again if you claim they are intentionally trying to cause civilian death then...). On the other hand, it is a tough situation, so it is hard to say what is the right or wrong thing to do.

I'll just go to the message that started this thread to help clarify things:

Calling Israel "a country that's killed over 1,200 civilians in the last month" is inciteful and misleading, roughly on par with accusing the US of currently engaging in slavery. Or perhaps rephrasing that as "Why did the country who killed 140,000 Iraqi civilians in Iraq in the last 10 years give a quarter of a billion dollars to...". Why is it inciteful and misinformed? Because it ignores both the cause of the bombings and the great efforts that are being done to prevent those casualties, instead presenting a situation where Israel randomly bombs civilians because they don't really like them.
For that matter it is also ignoring the fact that funding Iron Dome is also a political move meant so that further down the line the US will be able to tell Israel "come one, we gave you a bazillion dollars to defend yourselves against those rockets, you can safely calm down now (there's also the military reason, the US want some o' that sweet technology to develop further so they can use it to defend themselves against more sophisticated threats).

You are in charge - provide a reasonable alternative response to weapon launches and infiltrations into your country designed specifically to kill as many of your country's civilians.

Calling up civilians ahead of time to warn them that they are in a building that is about to be bombed, throwing an entirely none-lethal bomb to alert anyone that somehow still remains in the building that it is going to be destroyed and then firing a bomb which damages exactly that one weapon silo seems insufficient to you? Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the efforts other countries have taken to avoid civilian casualties that were more thorough? Did the US do anything better in Iraq for example?
I've provided the interview with Col. Richard Kemp (former commander of British NATO forces in Afghanistan) specifically because he says just that - "No other army in the world has ever done more than Israel is doing now to save the lives of innocent civilians", coming from a guy that was actually in such a sticky situation and involved with the intimate details.

Yes, they are attacking weapons that are currently in the business of being fired at it and attacking tunnels that are currently being used to launch attacks against its civilians (as well as smuggle weapons that are currently in the business of...).
Again, what would you do in the situation? If Mexican drug cartels started launching rockets into the US would you advise the US to ignore that and definitely not attack those drug cartels?

This is true, the difference is that one side is doing all that is in its power to avoid killing them, while the other side is throwing those civilians directly into the line of incoming fire.

I'll watch that later since I really have to get to work, however I'll just point out that that video was uploaded to YT in 2011 so it couldn't possibly go into any detail regarding the current war. It may or may not provide a balanced view of the Israeli-palestine conflict in general, but there's nothing it can say about any deaths going on right now.

You missed a digit there.

It contains some truths, but many half-truths and whole lies, and appears to be trying to sell us a book written by the speaker.

Indeed, this war could have been avoided 60 years ago had Israel not had to fight a war for its independence and instead was met with peace, and indeed there is no apartheid regime in Israel.

Yeah, I actually read that tidbit in another article on another site, but had trouble finding the original article so I just linked to the first article I found on Google

I'd add another digit there. Indeed modern Europian colonialism is only so old, but occupation and colonization are the entirety of human history. Israel itself was "owned" by various tribes, by Jews/Israelis, by Assyrians, by Persians, by Greeks, by Romans, by Arabs, then back and forth with those and Europeans, by Turks, and by the British.

What more do you expect? Name the action that needs to take place and explain how it will save palestinian lives while still preventing rockets from hitting Israeli people and preventing terrorists from infiltrating and murdering Israeli citizens.

There are no actions against civilians to justify, there are actions against terrorists that inadvertently cause civilians harm.

All that will lead to is that Hamas will never stop shooting rockets at Israel.
IMO a better solution would be to go all the way and utterly destroy Hamas (at great cost to both Israelis and palestinians), set up a temporary "puppet" government until the quality of life in Gaza can be raised significantly without any terrorist groups interfering. Give them electricity, water, education, healthcare and highspeed internet that are all free from ties to any terrorist group and then transition the government into their hands to manage from a stable and pleasant state, where they can govern themselves without any terrorist coercion or power.

Slartibartfast could you specifically point out the whole lies?

Israel is an apartheid regime, as defined by international standards, to say otherwise just speaks of yours and others denial, in the face of facts.

Slartibartfast, I have never met anyone before I could consider a fanatic, that being someone who is so indoctrinated in their own BS that they can no longer distinguish fact from fiction. Congratulations you are my first.

It should be now noted that Israel doesn't believe in the freedom of speech of its critics... even Jewish ones.

Moreover, that a 2009 U.S. State Department report (you know, from their biggest ally),

I'll admit that's a tangent to the issue of civilians getting bombed. But it's fun to spice up things with some background details when someone tries to act like a country is flawless. (My country, for example? Very flawed.)

[reverse typo]

My base opinion(which means I'm lacking all necessary information to be confident with my conclusions) is that Israel isn't able to occupy Palestine & hold it with the force required to "change" Palestine enough. It's just an effort Israel cannot pull out taking in to consideration it's.. Blah, population. A 100 million people country can do that to a big city. Israel can't, at least not in the world where international opinion can have effect on Israel, or even destroy it with sanctions. Furthermore, every killed Palestinian, makes two(or any other number) new warriors ready to die killing Israelis. The deaths also win international support for Hamas. However, effort with no fruit could actually cripple their system, which I believe would be the right thing to do by Israel instead of feeding the system with blood.

Work'em from Israeli side. Whatever happens, just don't kill. That's the blow. There are more, and will always be more terrorists in Palestine than Israel can kill, so the enemy isn't the terrororists, but the ideology that is fed by blood.

Hateful words filled with irony, but still I hold no hate for you. As they say, It's a free country, and you are entitled to your opinions. I wish you all the best.

At least its nice to see that everyone is being discriminated against equally, and that Israeli press is free to report it

Nah, I just exaggerate a bit because debating such hot topics can get you angry and defensive.
If we're on the subject of racism, I'll say that the treatment of arabs in Israel is close to the treatment of blacks in the US say 20(?) years ago. There are no laws specifically against Israeli arabs and they get all their rights^[1], but still many people have personal prejudice against them.
Its a sticky situation, as Johan says; As a child you get to hear the sirens go off and see your family run scared into shelter, you see your mother constantly worry about you going out with your friends or going on buses, in case you'll be on the one that explodes. When you're old enough to see the news you hear about terrorist attacks that have been prevented (or succeeded), and you see the speeches the leaders give on the other side, promising to utterly destroy your country. It is hard to grow up with those things and not have some hate for the apparent source.
On the other side of the fence you get to grow up in a shitty city, while a neighboring country has a much higher quality of life, and they're sitting on your land^[2]. You go to school in a Hamas^[3] sponsored school and when you get hurt you go to a Hamas hospital. When you watch the news all you see are the various injustices^[4] that are committed against your people. It is hard to grow up with those things and not have some hate for the apparent source.
This is why my thoughts on how to solve the problem are basically to forcefully stop it, if you can get 20 years of quiet, high quality livin' on both sides I'm sure that people will find it much easier to make peace.
This is also why statements to the effect that Israel does <some horrible thing> easily upset me, because Israel does not do <horrible thing>, and Israel and its military are working very hard on acting morally and minimizing unnecessary harm (which I know first hand they do). In truth, sometimes <some Israeli guy that is filled with hate> does <horrible thing>, sometimes <some Israeli politician> <betrays the trust of the Israeli people>, and those are the guys that need to take the blame, those are the guys that need to be condemned and punished. In truth, people often ignore the intricacies of a situation and end up with incorrect conclusions. This is part of why debating on the internet is so hard

Maybe it doesn't, it is hard to know for a fact. Currently, Netanyahu is asking for Gaza to become a demilitarized zone. I am hopeful that his request will be granted and that that will form the first step towards the "plan" I described above^[5].

You can't scare the people who aren't afraid to die, but you can scare some of their leaders. Those guys live much more comfortable lives and are hesitant to throw them away, they also fear any internal change that could cause them to lose their power. It is those guys that Israel is trying to deter when they talk about restoring their deterrence. Some also hope that the people of Gaza will blame Hamas for "bringing down Israel's wrath on them" (which they did, for a very short time immediately at the start of this war). I'm not saying these things because I'm saying that's how things are going to work, just explaining different thought processes on the issue.
Ultimately, I agree that bombing Gaza is a crappy solution, and even done with extreme care it will win you enemies, not help make friends. However, it will also destroy rockets and tunnels that are used to hurt you.
The problem is that even though it is a crappy solution, I just don't see any viable alternative that will work (type568's solution included), so sadly I have to support the best option in hand. I also understand why you (no specific you here), who doesn't have any problem on their hands, do not feel the need for such a crappy solution. Which is why I try and make you understand the situation at hand

It isn't so effective to look for tunnel apertures that aren't necessarily complete yet. IDF has already admitted they do not have technology to detect the tunnels so they have to look for openings that already exist. If a technology to destroy all tunnels without crossing Israel's wall could be used, by all means I'd endorse that over ground forces in Gaza. But wishful thinking doesn't yield the results that action does. Israel has to consider its own safety first. It can't always be on the defensive, Hamas was continually escalating the attacks and they WOULD have gotten worse to include large scale coordinated infiltration attacks using the tunnels. So Israel takes the tunnels out and withdraws.

Hamas won't stop attacking Israel while Israel exists, yet Israel does not want to be destroyed, so they really have no choice but to defend themselves. Hamas can make this more or less painful for the Palestinians, so I continue to hold Hamas accountable for their decisions to involve civilians.