@Jamiet:
I'll also say this on the subject of Israel being brutal--
If the Gazans were led by another group (hell, if they were led by Tories, lol...I kid, I kid) I would be far more critical of Israel's use of force.
I feel that Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS--these are malicious forces that are enough of a threat in both their armament and ideology that I will support what IS an extraordinary amount of force to be rid of them. In the Gaza-specific case, this is also because I'd rather Hamas be ended or at least severely weakened than have to do this again in 3 years, the way we've just had 3 wars in 8 years, but in the broader sense I also feel that an organization like Hamas, or Hezbollah, or the Muslim Brotherhood, or ISIS is so malignant and its ideologies and attitudes towards minorities, women, and the world at large are so malicious and dangerous that they cannot be allowed to continue or grow.
I'd actually point to ISIS as an example of this--given how savage they're being, and the fact they captured 1000 women to do God knows what to them yesterday, this is a group that MUST be eliminated...but one that was not utterly eliminated when we had the chance. We left remains of the fore-bearers of what ISIS is today behind after fighting in Iraq (I'm not justifying that war, just saying that we left remnants behind) and now that cancer has spread.
That's what I'd describe these groups as, socio-political cancer, and Israel's operations are akin to chemotherapy--
They ARE devastating, and there IS a lot of collateral damage, and a lot of non-cancerous elements ARE hurt or damaged by the process...
But you take chemo because the short-term hell of it is supposed to be better than the eventual long-term suffering and death that is the alternative.
Israel's operations are nowhere near as benign morally as chemo is, but I'd argue it has the same purpose, and that that's why it needs to be so brutal--because, like chemo, it needs to be THOROUGH...you can't have this stuff creep back, or it'll be even more devastating the next time around (and looking at this war vs. both the 2012 and even the 2008 Gaza Wars, that fact is sustained.)
I take the Utilitarian line here, that the good of more people being saved/benefiting/being spared in the long-term by way of this operation either ending or weakening Hamas so badly that it cannot wage war again for some time outweighs the incredible, awful short-term harm--
Which is to emphasize just how agonizing that long-term harm WOULD be.
If you can argue the opposite, that the short-term harm outweighs the long-term good of preventing this from happening again/ending Hamas' capacity to do this again for a very long time, then that'd be the best shot at an argument that could sway me on this...because Hamas is SO reprehensible that I (like you) can't side with them, in any capacity, and at this point I find Israel on par with the Utilitarian side of short-term/long-term ethics.
Doesn't mean they're moral, as again, the right thing =/= the morally right thing all the time. If you look at this as a Kantian, then yeah...you're going to be tearing your hair out at just about every last player involved in this.