Again, Israel doesn't have the right to further endanger and kill civilians just because Hamas might be nearby, and then keeping it up until it causes over 2000 casualties, over 10000 wounded, hundreds of thousands of refugees, and destruction of vital infrastructure that the population depends on to live. And you can only say this is unavoidable if you don't want to move to a peaceful solution - and unfortunately, Israel has no interest in a two state solution, or even a one state solution, for that matter, as evidenced by its actions over the years.
Israel does give warnings and phone calls before it bombs a target with civilians nearby,Hamas being the governing body of Gaza supported by the population and their human shields makes it impossible for Israel not to harm civilians.
I've just answered someone on this exact point, a few posts back:
"At one point Israel declared about 45% of Gaza as a no-go zone; in a small, densely populated area such as Gaza, and with both Israel and Egypt mostly denying passage to civilians, where exactly is the population supposed to go, even when warnings are actually given? Often times these people have nowhere else to go, and even taking refuge in the few shelters there are doesn't guarantee their safety, as Israel has, intentionally or not, repeatedly hit them."
And again - this doesn't seem to have registered with you yet:
"Also, even if there are enemies nearby firing rockets or whatnot, Israel doesn't automatically have the right to attack them if it puts civilians at risk - Israel's actions have been completely disproportionate, and lead me to question if they aren't just following the Dahiya doctrine again."
That is to say, you can't just attack an area when you know civilians will most likely be harmed - even if you warned them to get out (and as I said above, they can't always really do so). Doing this is a violation of the rules of war, and violates not only discrimination between civilian and military targets, but also proportionality in response to the threat.
a peaceful solution requires both sides to aim for peace,and that is currently impossible.
Yes, because Israel refuses to accept a peace deal, either in the form of the one or two state solution.
Now, you can try and excuse this any way you want, Hamas or not, but you can't then ignore the consequences on the population that is forced to live under this regime, or how it serves to further radicalize it.
The Palestininans elected Hamas,even if some Palestininans dont like Hamas anymore they realy do nothing to show it. besides Hamas,that are dozens of other factions that co operate with Hamas. the more radical Islamic Jihad for example.
Know that what you're advocating there is collective punishment - another violation of the Geneva Conventions. Further, it's so bad an argument, that it even serves to legitimate Hamas' attacks on civilians: "some 80% or 90% of Israelis support the attack on Gaza, so they are valid targets", or some nonsense like that - it's wrong when Hamas does it, and it's wrong when Israel does it. But treating the Palestinians like caged animals isn't going to solve anything; only worsen the situation.
That seems like the right reaction to me - but don't forget the circumstances which serve to perpetuate the conflict, namely, the blockade and the occupation.
That,and the Palestinians not wanting to have any Jews near them.
Really? Because I seem to recall them wanting to move to a peaceful solution, even quite recently, and Israel boycotting the negotiations.