Yes, you're quite right - I'm bringing up stuff from before the current war between Hamas and the Israeli state. That's muddying the waters, on my part, so I apologise for that. It's important to try to keep these things clear and distinct, otherwise we'll all lose track of them.
Also, 100% agree, the Israeli government and military are right to try to bring Hamas to justice for the crimes they have committed. The incursion into Israel, the brutality, the kidnapping, the torture and the murder are unspeakably wicked. I definitely agree a response is not only justified but also needful - it would be perverse if the government didn't take actions as a result of such an assault.
On to the biiig topic...
It is, indeed, legal for a country's military to cause civilian deaths in pursuit of a larger goal provided reasonable steps are taken to minimise such collateral damage. That's part of the Geneva Conventions (Protocol I). We in the UK have been doing it for a while now, particularly in the Middle East, on the grounds that our civilian casualties are minimised and justified.
Further to that, neither the USA nor Israel are signatories of Protocol I amendment to the Geneva Conventions. That means nothing Israel is doing, regardless how many civilians die, is a crime for which the government is Israel can answer to the International community. The Israeli government also doesn't recognise the International Criminal Court.
Lastly, I fully recognise that if a terrorist organisation realises their enemy will not attack them provided they have civilians or hostages nearby, then every single terrorist cell, project and stronghold will adopt civilians and hostages as cover. It's utterly unethical, and completely logical.
These are some huge matters.
In the first instance, legally speaking, Israel's government and military can pretty much do what it likes. According to the Rome Statute, the Israeli government can only be brought to account under Protocol I if it attacks another nation that is a signatory to Protocol I.
(A cynical person might, at this point, observe that the Israeli government's disinclination toward state recognition of Palestine prohibits any government they might have in Palestine from ratifying Protocol I and thus being protected by it.)
The Israeli government's immunity is also bolstered by the debatability of definitions used by the UN Office for Genocide Prevention. This include things like:
* Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives
* Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict
* Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated
* Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
* The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory
I think I've already linked two instances in which the IDF has fired on civilian crowds - one at an aid station, the other on evacuation routes to Southern Gaza. Those incidences should fall foul of the first point... but in practice, the IDF and government just say "we made a mistake... therefore it wasn't intentional, therefore we haven't done anything wrong".
Or take bullet-point (3), which tries to mitigate against disproportionate harm to civilians - well, what is excessive in this context? After such an awful terrorist attack, plenty of ministers and public figures in Israel would not seem to consider it excessive for Palestine to be obliterated if it also kills people in Hamas.
I think it's important to observe, lastly, that both the Israeli government and Hamas are very, very cagey about letting outside observers see what is happening.
Here's an exchange on NPR from a reporter based in the region. Reporters all over the area are harassed, arrested, detained and have their reports vetted before being released.
(That same cynical person might observe that this makes large swathes of what's going on there easy to see but hard to prove. If both the Israeli government and Hamas are working to keep as much quiet as possible, reporting from the area just becomes a game of "he said/she said". Nobody can be held to account since, outside of the observation of the very few NGOs allowed to operate in Palestine [again, restricted by the Israeli government and the ongoing blockade], there is no account to hold anybody to.)
So, what do I conclude from all this? I conclude that, much like the UK and USA, the Israeli government is doing everything it can to avoid scrutiny of its military actions. They will release reports on what they say happened, Hamas will release reports with what they say happened, and the rest of us will be none the wiser as to what actually is happening because nobody can verify anything.
That doesn't prove the Israeli government is doing Bad Things, but certainly if they were to do Bad Things then there would be no evidence for accusations of war crimes or crimes against humanity.
This is why I put so much stock in the reports from the region from third parties.
My closing answer on whether or not Israel can attack Hamas, then:
Legally, Israeli forces can do, militarily, pretty much whatever they like in Palestine because Palestine isn't a state (and so can't ratify conventions that would protect it) and because they (and Hamas) choose to strongly control the flow of information and reports from the region. If independent observers were allowed free access, they might find facts that change those conclusions - or they might not.
--
Regarding child soldiers:
I'd like to re-orient our question around civilian casualties, including children, and the use of child-fighters by Hamas (if I may).
How I would like to orient it is around what does killing those people achieve? I think we can agree, together, that to kill 20,000 - 30,000 people must achieve something extraordinary, to justify such extraordinary civilian deaths at the hands of a nation's armed forces.
I'll tell you something brief about me, and my view of the world, because it'll help me be clearer in my meaning. I think every human being is almost a universe in themselves, by which I mean each of us (whether we're good, bad or in-between) may accumulate decades and decades of experiences, thoughts, feelings, sensations, dreams, ideas, day-dreams, fears, inspirations, loves and flights of fantasy. We will experience music, and sunshine, and decide upon favourite food. We will choose friends and whether we like Friday nights or Sunday morning better. We are, all of us, an irreplaceable, unique and vast inner world of accumulated wisdom and experience. When we walk down the street, every person we meet embodies this. Everyone we see. Everyone we don't see - up in apartments or in offices. Hundreds upon thousands upon millions upon billions of unique people... each as deep and fantastic as the world under the ocean.
Each of those universes is also completely mortal. One day, they; you; me; everyone, we will all just disappear forever, like a mandala of sand being hit by a breeze, so new people and new inner-universes can have their time.
It is for that reason, and from that perspective, that I think civilian life should be preserved unless all other options have failed. I fundamentally disagree with our nations' views on collateral damage (ie killing civilians) in that I accept it may sometimes be necessary but I believe we've come to tolerate it far more than we should. Each civilian heart stopped is as distinct and worthy of life as my own. Each death should be cause for our militaries to stop and review and confirm "was that necessary? Was there really no other way?" That should just be due process.
My reasoning is that when we cheapen lives, or see them as expendable or as valid collateral in a greater game, we are killing a part of ourselves. More than that, we are opening ourselves to a direct threat of revenge and retribution. Hamas have already done gone down this rabbit hole: whatever legitimate issues they may or may not have ever had are now obscured by the loathing and hatred they rightly inspire. Why should any reasonable nation want to debate with a group that seeks to annihilate the Jewish people?
We must not go down that path. If we find ourselves on it, we must turn back. If, after I have so cheapened life and made my disregard for suffering so clear, why should I be granted mercy or succour from those I have harmed?
"Hamas" is a particular terrorist group, with leaders, structure, cells and ideology. What I feel they represent is an idea. It is an idea that feeds on a narrative of suffering, unfairness and pain and promises revenge. Wherever those three factors flourish... so will the idea. It might not always be called Hamas. It might be called Al Qaeda. Or British Fascism. It has many, many names.
I return to my rhetorical question of what is being gained, what we are getting by killing civilians.
You see, an idea cannot be bombed, or shot, or arrested. The villains in Hamas, who carried out Oct 7th and subsequent horrors, they can be but not the idea behind them.
The way to defeat the idea is to cut off its nourishment: suffering, unfairness and pain. Yes, there may still be times when it is necessary to cause civilian casualties (or, indeed, harm to child soldiers) but only when all other options are exhausted. We can do it if we have to, that doesn't mean we should do it. Each instance should be a moment of soul-searching.
Hamas will be defeated when the people in Palestine have save homes, enough food to eat, functioning hospitals and hope. Hope that things are getting better. When the peoples involved agree to be bound by common international law around war and civilian casualties.
The idea of Hamas will always exist somewhere - so we must be vigilant and use our counter-terrorism intelligence wisely. But the threat will be far less so than trying to solve the problem only with bullets.
Well, that's what I reckon anyway.
--
On the footnote: yes, I think I was oversimplifying the answer. You're right. The Israeli military did respond within hours to Southern Israel (which the article was, rightly, critical of: it should have been even sooner), but it was (just as you say) much longer before the retaliation in Gaza started in-force.
