In a way, that’s a misleading question as well, because you’re assuming several things; primarily that finding and destroying the tunnels will prevent RPG attacks on unarmed citizens, which I would argue hasn’t been proven to be true by any means. This is like the argument that backers of the patriot act here in our country put forward: that it’s necessary to prevent terrorism. #1 – there’s no proof that it does actually prevent terrorism, and #2 even if it did, that doesn’t mean that it’s the only way to do it, or that it’s justified.

If the Israeli government decided to eradicate every last Palestinian (or move them all into concentration camps, etc.) following the lead of a certain other government that they’ve had experience with, that would certainly be effective in achieving the goal of ending Palestinian terrorism, so does that justify it? Of course not. The ends do not justify the means.

That’s the thing that bothers me the most about all these justifications of governmental actions that are wrong; they think that saying that they’re “preventing terrorism” should automatically justify pretty much any measures they’re willing to take, and we should accept them without question.

Here’s one that is just a little closer to reality and harder to answere, not saying it’s complete, or accurate all the time. – Is it OK to buldoze many houses where the ouccupants have been begged to leave in order to find and destroy a few smuggiling tunnels that are vital for the enemy to carry out RPG attacks on unarmed citizens?

However, the dangers when it comes to war are when the war was not justified in the first place, or when (even in a justified war) a combatant engages in unethical conduct (such as torture) that is not justified even in the context of a war.