YASNY
International Law draws a distinction on assassinations. What further clouded this is that there is not a declared war here. In effect, Israel and Palestine are trying to stop war-like actions with police tactics. This makes, for some people, a difficult moral decision.
So we have a sliding scale to justify killing civilians. I can agree with that. If you are sitting next to Sgt. Schultz your civilian life is worth more in the equation than if Rommel was hiding in a building you happen to live in. Such is the ugly side of * war *.
But I still contend they are part of the entire target. It is like saying we were just trying to blow up a couple buildings in Hiroshima. Those buildings were our real target. No. To stop the horrors of war we have to accept the target is everything that will be destroyed by the bullet, bomb, or missle. Call a spade a spade. If you know something will be destroyed or a person killed, they are a portion of the target. You are already factoring them in when you state when it is ok vs. when it is not.
Rommel + 10 civilians = ok, bombs away
Schultz + 10 civilians = not ok
See, they are in the equation?
Then should Israel just declare war? Should there be a difference of behavior if you have declared war vs. not? I think there should.