Why do you resort to binary "all-or-nothing" conclusions? I don't think anyone here is saying that Israel should sit back and do nothing about the threat of rocket fire from Gaza.
One irony is that you are those like you are all or nothing guys too, because you only see the deaths of people as a result of Israel's action and thus you criticise Israel for responding to Hamas attacks. The only way Israel can not kill civilians is to nothing, there is no alternative, since the actions they are taking were of a higher standard than any army in the world ha taken and yet thy get flak for it, so if I were in the Israeli cabinet, I would just say use the full power we have to eliminate any threat.
Lets assume that Israel doesn't fire upon any Hamas positions that are close to civilian populations. Do you know what you are asking Israel to do? Quite frankly you are basically saying they cannot respond to any Hamas attack since all of them come from civilian populations even when there is plenty of space for Hamas to operate outside of civilian populations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/population_settlements.stm
As you can see there are plenty of pockets within the Gaza Strip that have limited population that would be ideal for Hamas to fight from, if they were honourable, but they aren't, so they fight from within the civilian population and you say that Israel cannot cause civilian deaths, then as a result you are effectively saying that Israel cannot attack Hamas positions, because doing so will result in civilians killed. But lets take the example of how one drone attack by the US killed 13 people. So if Israel killed that many people every strike, then the death toll would be approximately 65,000, since Israel has launched close to 5,000 missile strikes on Hamas positions and yet we have a relatively small number of people killed as a result. Israel could have done it so much differently if they were going after civilian, but the fact of the matter is this, Israel went after Hamas and other terror organisations and thus the blood of the civilians is on Hamas and the other terror organisations because they are the ones who put them at risk, not Israel, since it has a legitimate target under international law to go after launch sites.
That said, consider that the rockets fired from Gaza aren't resulting in hundreds of deaths of Israeli citizens. Partly due to the nature of the rockets themselves, and also Iron Dome. It's been a modest success, intercepting rockets that could have threatened Israeli citizens. That's awesome, and I'm glad the system is working*.
*EDIT: The rest of my post is definitely crossing a grey line, as there is quite a robust debate over the effectiveness of IronDome. I certainly don't know who has the right numbers, but here's sentiment that I find compelling:
Source:
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/08/05/iron-domes-success-in-israel-is-ironclad/
The problem is that you are ignoring the intent of the rockets. It doesn't matter if the rockets get stopped, which in itself is a marvellous achievement and yet Israel is getting criticised for making such an advance to defend its citizens.
Even the UN has criticised Israel and the US for supporting Israel in its ability to defend itself via the Iron Dome. That is just absolute rubbish and shows how complicit the UN is with Hamas and the fact that it allows it to use it's own buildings for military purposes. The UN should be angry at Hamas for firing from the vicinity of its buildings, but we don't hear that at all and some how only Israel is at fault if Hamas fires from protected sites.
The few rockets that haven't been intercepted were determined to be not worth intercepting as they'd land in unpopulated areas. Sounds like a good cost/benefit calculation to me.
So Israel is routinely intercepting these "threats", neutralizing them, yet still sees the need to accept hundreds and hundreds of innocent civilian casualties in order to eliminate a threat that's already being handled nearly perfectly. That's the immorality here, this is the reason Israel is harming itself more than it's harming Gaza.
If there were no Iron Dome I'd likely agree that the IDF has a moral obligation to the citizens of Israel to prempt a rocket launch, even if that means some innocent bystanders happen to die in the assault. But the way things are now, Israel doesn't need to bomb a hospital, school, or apartment building just because a rocket was launched from the courtyard. Because that rocket will be neutralized before it is able to inflict any (non-monetary) harm on Israel.
Yet they kill the civilians anyway.
That's the problem - Israel's response is entirely disproportionate to the threat. The threat of rockets is very low owing to Iron Dome and the nature of the rockets themselves.
Every rocket has the potential to kill Israeli citizens, do you think Israel's primary concern should be protecting them? Do you think that it is okay to fire rockets at will on civilian populations? Why is Israel being criticised for protecting its citizens from such random attacks?
Again you are playing the fallacy that just because they don't cause direct harm, they aren't a threat. If Israel were going after civilians, why aren't there 75% of the victims women and children, considering that is the demographical make up of the civilian population and yet according to the Palestinians we see 75% of those killed are adult male. That is an inverse of the civilian population, so Israelis definitely targeting a certain group of people and it is most certainly not the general population. Based on Israeli source they say they have got over 900 operatives and of the rest still half of them could be militant killed. That makes the ratio of civilians killed to militant of less that 1:1. Find me any modern war where any army gets close to a 50/50 ratio of civilians killed to the legitimate targets? The simply fact is that Israel places great care on limiting civilians casualties and the fact that any die is a result of Hamas and the other terror organisations. The first goal is to protect your national interests. That does mean going after places where attacks come from and the people who fire them and their stockpiles. In any war civilians will get killed and that is the truth of war. Hamas started this fight and they knew full well what was going to happen and that is why they are to blame for the deaths and not Israel. Israel left Gaza in 2005 and only closed the borders when it became apparent that Hamas had no intentions of living peacefully with Israel and just constantly and indiscriminately fire from Gaza. I know of no nation that would put up with this behaviour, so why does Israel have to put up with this?
People who are killed don't have trauma 
