While Hamas breaks yet another truce, killing two Israeli soldiers and capturing another, Obama says that while Israel has a right to defend herself she must use restraint.
Yes, don't hurt the terrorists too much, don't cause any suffering for those who voted Hamas into power and give them aid and support.
I don't recall Israel telling President Bush he needed to show restraint when he went after the Taliban and Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
I don't know too much about the conflict but I've still got a couple of points to make. First is the 'but they started it' line which I've seen a few times, including in Dave's post above. The insinuation seems to be that because Hamas started it, whatever they get is just desserts and therefore Israel is above any criticism it might receive for how it handles the conflict. My view is that it's just irrelevant whether or not Hamas started it to whether or not Israel should respond proportionately (and I'm not saying they aren't).
Secondly, John's remarks about Obama being wrong for telling Israel to defend itself with restraint--if that's what Obama said then it's a totally uncontroversial remark, even redundant. Countries have long expected each other to act with restraint during conflict. You brought up the UK earlier John, saying that it has acted decisively in conflict in the past. Yeah and it has been criticised for its role in conflict many times--bombing of Dresden, sinking of the Belgrano, bloody Sunday, Amritsar massacre are just a few that spring to mind--and rightly criticised too. I'm not saying criticism of Israel is fair and I'm definitely not saying the country's behaviour can be compared to the events I just cited, but the country isn't above criticism--no country is.