'Children were carrying other injured children': Witness describes aftermath of Israeli strike on Gaza refugee camp

[Jedi Guy]

110. "There's legalism, then there's morality."

This is true. And in both senses, IDF is sworn to the defense of Israel and the protection of Israeli civilians. That is their very reason for existence.

Let's suppose IDF is confronted with this scenario. Hamas has placed a rocket launch site on the roof of a civilian apartment building. This launcher is firing missiles into Israel. These are not guided missiles, by the way. They land where they land. Might be an IDF base, might be a daycare full of children. It's a crapshoot. Hamas, of course, doesn't care where it lands, as long as it kills Jews.

The IDF now have two choices. They can either strike the launcher to destroy it, thus preventing it from launching missiles that will kill the people they're sworn to protect. Doing so will, however, kill innocent Palestinians.

Or they can refrain from striking the launch site and allow it to continue to launch rockets into Israel with impunity, resulting in the deaths of some unknown and unknowable number of Israelis.

What you're arguing for here, in essence, is for the Israelis to simply take it on the chin and allow their people to die. They're not going to do that.

For the IDF, legally and morally speaking, the first choice is correct, awful though it is. Their first responsibility is to protect Israeli citizens. If they can avoid killing innocent Palestinians while doing so, that's terrific. If Hamas, as is their practice, forces the IDF into a situation that doesn't allow them to do so, however, then IDF will do what it must to protect the civilians who rely on them. Sometimes there are no good choices, only less bad choices.