Geez, by that logic some collateral civilian damage is acceptable if it gives a nation grounds to attack someone they’ve always wanted to get rid of???

I must have put on my tinfoil hat this morning. Sorry!! :)

I really don't want to go down the endless list of comparisons but I don't think anyone warned the civilians in the world trade center just before it was hit. But in the case of the AP office:

"We received a warning that the building would be hit. "

And I think civilian casualties was was intended goal of the World Trade Center attack....

It's a bad comparison IMO.

If al-qaeda had:

- warned everyone before blowing up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon so they’d have time to evacuate

- not hijacked civilian airliners and murdered the pilots

- not killed everyone on board the planes by deliberately crashing them

…then yes that would be a valid comparison. It would also cause me to have a much more nuanced opinion of al-qaeda.

Your logic twist doesn't make any sense.

If you're Israel you certainly might choose to level an 11 story building if it houses a meaningful share of or otherwise critical Hamas intelligence operations. That's direct targeting; Hamas had operations in the building and they intentionally, directly hit the building.

You don't fly jetliners into giant skyscrapers to hope to side-hit by luck a very miniscule portion of a massive target like the CIA. That would never be a consideration for the operation. The 9/11 hijackers as we know for a fact chose the WTC for the terror purposes of killing and scaring the civilian population. Your logic twists pretends we don't know what their intentions were.

do countries release evidence for every building they bomb?

There has never been elections in Gaza. Hamas runs a brutal dictatorship.

Fatah won elections in the West Bank in 2006, and has not allowed any elections since.

While there remains some Arab support for informal, low-level violence directed towards Israel, ever since Black September etc. the Palestinians not being able to have a formal military to defend themselves is what all their neighbours can agree on, not just Israel.

I'm not going to participate in what is bound to be a flamewar on this topic, so I'll probably just contribute with this single comment.

Hamas won the election in 2006, and no elections have been held since. While sort of democratically elected and likely still the majority party, Hamas has recently launched hundreds of rockets targeting the civilian population of Israel. This is unquestionably an act of government-run terrorism. It's not the first time - this is doctrine.

It's very hard to make sense of news reports on this conflict, as propaganda is bound to be rampant on both sides.

I've read plenty of news reports over the years stating that Hamas doctrine is to use civilian infrastructure for their operations. Meaning hospitals, civilian residences and most recently, press buildings. And also that Hamas intimidates journalists not to report such operations in any degree of detail. Israeli doctrine, on the other hand, is to give advance warning but systematically attack Hamas fighters that operate out of such locations.

It would be unsurprising if a military force uses lies and deception to achieve their objectives. It's impossible to be confident that reports are honest. Was this an attack on Hamas targets using a press building as a human shield, as the IDF states, or was it simply a pretext to destroy the press headquarters in Gaza? No journalists are reported to have been killed in the attack, as far as I can tell. I would wager that this was actually an attack on Hamas fighters or assets, but there's little evidence. I could be wrong.

Regardless, I would welcome a discussion that gives some serious thought to how to defend oneself against an adversary that operates like this. Meaning, deliberately attacking the civilian population and then using civilians and civilian infrastructure as human shields during the response.

> Gaza not allowed to have any military to defend themselves?

They are absolutely allowed to have a military I think. Edit: At least for all intents and purposes they do have one when they can coordinate large rocket attacks and do have numerous anti tank teams.

They are however not using it to defend thenselves but to poke "pointed sticks" into their neighbor in the hope that te neighbor will do something that the media will make a story of.

And, since it is military the neighbor is also allowed to bomb it when they are fed up with having shot rockets at their civilians.

Edit2:

> Isreal free to inflict as much collateral damage as they want upon anyone, but anyone else following the same rules is a terrorist?

If Israeli military was hiding among civilians and Hamas precision strikes hurt civilians despite Hamas calling them up an hour in advance I wouldn't blame Hamas either.

That is some of the difference.

Realistically there is no such thing as a war without the destruction of civilian assets. What do you suggest Israel should do if Hamas is firing rockets at them from within a city?

There are a lot of people who do want to blow each other up and that's just life

Wow, this tweet is egregious. Terroristic threats allowed on twitter...