Operation Cast Lead (December 27, 2008 - January 18, 2009) was launched after 8 years of relentless terrorist attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip (including 3 years following the 2005 complete disengagement and pullout from Gaza) by Hamas and its associated organizations. The links below provide a background for the operation as well as video documentation that illustrates how Hamas initiates attacks using human shields in the midst of heavily populated areas and use hospitals, schools, and mosques for storage of ammunition and to purposefully attack Israeli civilians. Much has been written on the use of "disproportional" force; typically these are one-sided calls aiming at Israel to cease fire but not directing the same calls to the terrorists. While the loss of uninvolved civilians is regrettable a country has a right (indeed an obligation) to defend its citizens.



Some critics (including a number of prominent Israeli writers and columnists) have expressed opposition to the use of force simply because Israel is known to be "strong." The position of such critics (even if in some - and only in rare cases - is well intended), reveals a complete moral bankruptcy and short-sightedness that verges on irresponsibility (when well-intended) and malice (when ill-intended). After all, what exactly does it mean to be "strong" if power cannot be used? Why have a military if it is never to be used? To negotiate is admirable but where is the limit a society should place on the lethal mixture of not having a negotiating partner and yet having 8 years of bombardment on a large portion of its civilian populations? How much restraint should a state exercise against terrorists who use human shields to shoot at civilians? Do nothing because uninvolved will be hurt? If so, why not just acquiesce to the terrorist and let them have whatever they want? What can Israel negotiate with Hamas whose declared goal is the absolute annihilation of all of Israel? Or should such negotiations be carried out with Iran for which Hamas and Hizbullah serve as proxies? After all, Iran carries the nuclear threat with the same goal and not just against Israel.



Because issues of morality and justification are integral to policies that democracies formulate and carry out, it is important to shed some light on the legal and moral aspects in connection with this operation. The fact that democracies try to set high standards to avoid hurting civilians does not seem to impress the critics. Short of Israel committing suicide perhaps nothing will. Perhaps even that may not placate those who vow to kill Israel as they will claim that they were deprived of the opportunity to do so themselves. Therefore it is important to point out the critics' false morality on one hand and the justification for the operation on the other. The articles by Dershowitz, Friedmann, Gerson, Harari, Kramer, and Yemini highlight important elements of legitimacy, legality, and moral justification.

http://www.cjgsu.net/initiatives/Terrorism%20and%20Warfare.htm