To the question, “what was Israel supposed to do?” I think we need more nuanced answers than we’ve been given heretofore.

Of course Israel has a right to self-defense, but the right to self-defense isn’t absolute. If you create the danger that you’re defending yourself from, that can cut against your claim. If you go overboard, that is also a problem.

There are two issues pertaining to the question of creating the danger that have received insufficient attention. First, if Gaza is so jam packed with civilians such that you can’t bomb anything there without killing innocents, that is partly Israel’s fault. They have pursued a policy of draining as many Palestinians from the West Bank as possible and stuffing them into Gaza. And then they seal the place up and let no one leave.

And if Israel now faces a foe that uses human shields, that is also partly Israel’s doing. They have propped up Hamas in order to divide the Palestinians, thwart a two state solution, and slowly annex the West Bank.

So yes, it is extremely difficult for Israel to meet this threat without inflicting serious civilian casualties. But the difficulty of their predicament is partly of their own making. Therefore the just thing to do is for Israel to assume more of the risk of it’s offensive. Fewer bombings. More special forces raids.

More Israeli soldiers will die, but soldiers always risk death in war. That is preferable to a situation where children who have had nothing to do with the Israeli government’s choices or Hamas’ choices nevertheless are asked to assume the risks those choices create.