Netanyahu cannot let the war end

The dambusters was strategic, shooting innocent children isn't. The blowing of the dams was to break Germanies war machine and cost about 1,300 lives.

Nearly every historian agrees the nuclear bombs ending Japans war quickly saved more lives than they cost. 

Please give me your access to similar thinking from the Israelis. 

Not to mention the inequality in fighting ability between Hamas and Germany/Japan. Then I will see your reasoning for why Israel needs such extreme measures. 

Firstly, the 'inequality in fighting ability' is caused by the absurd insistence (by people like yourself) that one side be allowed to declare and engage in a war of annihilation, while the other side is prevented,, by bizarre special ethical claims, from pursuing this conflict to a rational conclusion (ie surrender). the consequence is the bizarre circumstance of a continuous declaration of war from a side that would be vanquished in five minutes if a war with them was actually pursued. This is the Monty Python pantomime sketch your idiocy created.

Secondly, I'm making no claims at all about the appropriateness of allied actions in ww2, I am rather appealing to you to try your best to make an even-handed and flat comparison between that an Israeli actions. If Israel were to flood an entire section of Gaza to pursue its aims, would you see that as dramatic escalation in terms of civilian risk or a dramatic de-escalation? Another example - If Israel were create a 'firestorm' in Gaza by carpet bombing, would you (again) see as this as more careful than their current tactics?

Once again - the Israelis are not shooting Palestinian non-combatant children deliberately as a matter of official policy and so any such actions would be considered murder by the Israeli government. This is in stark contrast to the Gazan authorities who do not consider burning jews on bonfires to be a crime.

So far, you have managed to carefully avoid my central point - but this wont last.

Time and again your argument fails on one thing, your definition of who the enemies are. They are a terrorist group, not the peoples of Gaza. 

Do you believe Israel should be allowed shoot missiles into Cambridge UK because there may be a Hamas leader hiding there? OK to drive military vehicles down Regent Street shooting anyone they see because they are sure one of them is a member of Hezbollah?

Your comparison between WW2 and Gaza is also failing, because it relies on you ignoring the disparity in ability to fight back. We were fighting for our existence against Germany, Israel is not fighting for its existence against Gaza. . 

I'll deal with your points one at a time and try my best again to illustrate why they are ludicrous ( in fact, sometimes comical)

Zany, i have arranged my replies in separate paragraphs each dealing with one of your points. Please, please, please (as a favour to me) do not separate out my reply into separate quotes. Doing this makes your posts almost impossible to reply to. We only have three points so there is no reason this needs to expand further.

1, Your first point is the issue of due care to avoid civilian casualties re-branded as 'definition of the enemy'. This point was dealt with a couple of posts ago when i highlighted the ludicrous situations that could be a consequence of applying your standard of 'duty of care' For instance, a situation in which Nazi Germany's territory and regime remain intact after ww2 because it is calculated that invading Germany and destroying the Nazi regime would necessarily involve 'too many' German civilian casualties.

2,However this only deals quantitatively with your ludicrous standard, the killing blow came when i pointed out that your argument fails qualitatively as well - ie an extra significant restriction that applies only to enemies of dictatorships, translates to an advantage to dictatorships.  As it stands, your standard and rationale means that democracies are not allowed to properly defeat dictatorships. If we do end up in a conflict with Russia, I will be interested to hear your take on how the UK should pursue this war without significantly risking Russian civilian casualties.

Your second point has already been dealt with numerous times.
3,The reason Israel does not feel the need to shoot missiles into Cambridge to kill terrorists is because Israel's diplomatic relationship with the UK that allows Israel to get a satisfactory redress without invading or attacking the UK itself. If you did not understand this part of my earlier point, you do not understand a significant fraction of my position. Your scenario raises an interesting question though.

4,If Israel were firing rockets into Cambridge and the UK couldn't get the Israeli government to stop it or desist, I would surmise that more or less a state of war would exist between Israel and the UK. I would not be surprised (practical factors aside) if the UK bombed or invaded Israel until this stopped. I would also not be surprised if such an action resulted in large numbers of Israeli civilian casualties. Presumably, you would argue ferociously that no such action should be contemplated because of the risk to Israeli civilians who may not be directly involved in firing rockets?

5, Your third point is perhaps the daftest of the three. It amounts to special rule that you should only fight strong enemies and never enemies you can handily defeat - but the very nature of war is that it can only be won by being stronger than the enemy. Presumably, if an enemy becomes weak during conflict, its enemies are then ethically bound to stop fighting it until it regains enough strength to be worthy again? This is the most comical position you hold.

I have a question related loosely to your third and first point
6,Given Hamas is small minority in Gaza and only amounts to two-bit criminal organisation, rather than a proper worthy foe, would you support an internationally led policing effort to invade Gaza and arrest /execute the members of Hamas? If not, why not?