Good to see that you and Art can exchange ideas in a civil manner - something which would be aided if you started fewer of your posts with words like "Rubbish" or the likes. You often come across as lacking any respect for other peoples opinions, and you make far more sense, when you adopt a more conciliatory tone.
I get the point that you and Icebreaker are trying to make, which is essentially that Israel just can't be expected to sit there and take it, as it would only invite more attacks onto them. I don't think anyone (on this thread) has suggested that they just sit there and take it. The argument which has raged here is whether Israel's response is proportionate or not.
Again, you (and Ice) appear to take the view that "Shock and Awe" is an appropriate response given the circumstances......and it's really that position which is being questioned.
Arthur's thesis that Israel are held to a higher moral standard is accurate I think - principally for many of the reasons that you yourself would state. But you seem to think that Israel is only doing what any other Western State would do......and I think this is where we essentially diverge.
To use a reference-point that many of us will be familiar with, the IRA conducted bombings and shootings on UK territory for around a quarter of a century - bombings which resulted in many hundreds more deaths and maimings than Hamas have inflicted on Israel since the First Intifada kicked-off.
Not once throughout that 25 year period, did the UK government consider sending the RAF over Belfast, Derry (or anywhere else), with a view to dropping bombs into Republican areas. The UK's relative (overall) circumspection throughout that particular period, is much more reflective of what is an acceptable response to an aggressor, imo.
