International law is notoriously unclear with regards to the proportional use of force. Israel are acting in self defence, surely that much cannot be denied? My Afghanistan/Iraq comparison was to do with proportionality, not legality. The exact point is that almost the international community dont really have a leg to stand on when it comes to condemning attacks that havent been sanctioned by the UN or international law. The UN is full of hypocrisy and falsehood, and notoriously biased with regards to the Arab- Israeli conflict. Im not disregarding international law, simply stating the very notion is weak and simply not adhered to; Guantanamo Bay, anyone? What about the USA and UK attacking Iraq on the basis of extremely questionable intelligence? The French influence in bloody dictatorships in Africa, and the more recent intervention in the Ivory Coast? The Chinese occupation of Tibet? Tony Blair is a complete idiot to question Israel when his reign as PM saw his country enter a much more questionable war. Compared to the mistakes and travesties carried out by other UN member nations, Israel's action is far more justified. Terrorism often is random acts of violence against civilians. Whilst flying a plane into a major symbol of American capitalism is a carefully-chosen target, blowing yourself up in a market place of civilians has the aim of killing as many people as possible. Firing homemade rockets over a border constitutes a random attack. Its just the carefully chosen attacks that are the most notorious. As Ive said before, I strongly believe that if Hamas disarmed there would be peace. If Israel disarmed, they would be quickly vaporised.