This is a war, and one side has the option to end it at any time.That is how it is in every war. When one side surrenders, the war is over.
When a suicide bomber blows up a pizza place, the capacity of Israel to kill is not reduced.That's not entirely accurate. The Israeli's capacity to kill is just as reduced after a suicide attack as the Palestinian's capacity to kill is reduced after that attack.
In this attack, there is at least the hope that the Hamas capacity to organize attacks is reduced.Let's not deal with hope.
But if it takes Hamas an extra week to organize the next round of suicide bombings, lives have been saved, without valuing lives on one side over those on another.Not saved. Their deaths have been delayed. Don't forget, because the Israeli's show not restraint in killing children, this will convert more people to suicide bombing.
I'm sure there will be "dead is dead" in the reply, but there is a moral difference between attacking an enemy's military assets - including command and control - and attacking a population for raw body count and pain.That is true. But that is not the case here. A sniper killing him would be morally superiour to suicide bombers.
Again, being the "good" guys means that you can't take the same actions as the "bad" guys.
For Israel to win, the Palestineans have to stop killing people. For Hamas to win, all the Jews have to be gone. The two positions are not moraly equivalent.I didn't say they were. It's the actions taken that are the problem.
You can have a morally superiour position, yet perform immoral actions to achieve that goal.
The end does not justify the means.