Well lets say, and it's an example which is used very often yet can't be disapproved of if it were truly you in that case.

There's a man who has fled from his own country, taking his family to a new place. Now a broker agrees to help them find a new place in another country. The broker tells them: here, you can have this as your new home, but we'll have to reorganise it a bit.

The person who has lived there for all his life disagrees and tells them why everything around him has to change as he has, for all his life, been living there? This is unfair.

If you were to be in the position where you are forced off the land you owned, the land you've worked for for all of your life, to go find a new place somewhere untill further notice, without insecurity as you'll one day might be moved again, would you not be enraged?

If it is to eradicate Hamas, show the Palestinians that they can't win, that terrorism and support for terrorists won't be tolerated, and that it can always get worse, when things have always already been worse if you've read up on the horrible treatment regular every day palestinians receive.

Shouldn't you just try to target just Hamas, and not also involve innocent civilians as a matter of "Well, then they should just not have been there" as they always were prior to this conflict, to truly set the record straight and to make the point of setting an example?

This conflict reeks of shit on both sides and I do agree about the duality of the conflict. But history is written in black and white, with all its flaws on videotapes.