The line between civilian and military among Hamas is blurrier, because people who want to join Hamas probably come directly from civilian ranks without a whole lot of differentiation&nbs p;- they're a more populist movement by necessity, because if they were as separate from the civilian population as the Israeli military is, Israel would have gotten rid of them already.  So in a way, civilian deaths are inevitable.

I voted that it's worse to kill 60 civilians, simply because in the long term, the more civilians die, the longer a population is likely to hold a grudge, and the harder it is for peace to take hold.  I predict that after this military action, Israel will significantly reduce or even crush the group Hamas' grip on Gaza, but that new groups will form espousing Hamas' philosophy, and they'll be just as popular.

But on the other hand, Hamas' tactics were WAY less effective in terms of protecting their people than Israel's.  They killed four civilians on purpose, they're getting their ass beat down.  Israel kills 60 civilians and their international political clout is reduced.  Both actions are bad decisions, but Hamas' were far more suicidal.