Overreaction is the mildest thing I'd call it. It's an ongoing series of brutal war crimes, and if it's true that the reaction is considered spot-on that does not make it more justified.

At the same time, it is a demonstration of exactly why this reaction is counter-productive, because you can expect that exact same anger to grow in a Palestinian population where the vast majority had nothing to do with the attacks, nor have ever voted for - or even had a chance to vote for - Hamas (~80% of the current population of Gaza were either not born or not of voting age when Hamas won a minority of the vote), and who before this wanted Hamas out. Expect to see a massive resurgence in support for Hamas and even more extreme groups, and the net outcome being to have made Israel's security situation significantly worse.

It has also massively damaged support and sympathy for Israel internationally. E.g. many political forums I'm in used to see it as distasteful or too extreme to describe Israel as an apartheid state just a couple of years ago, while it is a widely supported view today, and the Israeli reaction is regularly described as ethnic cleansing with little opposition to the use of that term.

Put another way: Hamas has gotten exactly what it wanted out of this, and Israel has harmed its case and harmed its security massively.

If I were to make a prediction, it would be that unless Israel massively changes direction very quickly, the Israeli response to the Hamas attacks will contribute to making resistance to the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement start to crumble.

What I meant is that "overreaction" is a subjective term. From perspective of an average Israely (again, my subjective observation) it's not "over" reaction.

So > the Israeli leadership is so easy to goad into over-reaction

From Israely leadership perspective it's NOT an overreaction, so it IS easy.

And in general "overreaction" is too emotionally charged. What would be an adequate reaction? Send us your X women we'll rape them? How do you measure "over"ness of a response to mass rape and torture?

It is irrelevant to the point I made that the average Israeli doesn't see it as overraction or that the leadership doesn't. The point is that they're demonstrating that they're either to dumb to realise what Hamas intent was (goading them into brutal violence to whip up support for further violence against Israel in return), or they're not interested in stopping the violence.

And as I point out "overreaction" was the mildest term I'd consider using. Emotionally charged would be to call it mass murder and ethnic cleansing, and war crimes. An adequate reaction would be not to brutally murder civilians and carry out extensive war crimes.

> How do you measure "over"ness of a response to mass rape and torture?

By lack of adherence to international law. By any willingness to cause mass murder and engage in ethnic cleansing.

At the very least, by the time the IDF response had led to the murder of more civilians than the attack of terrorists they are hunting, they ought to consider that it is no more morally acceptable for them to murder civilians than the other side, and they've become what they claim to want to destroy.

That doesn't answer my question, what would be an adequate reaction to more than thousand civilians brutally murdered, raped, etc? What Israel should've done as response that you would consider adequate for all sides, Palestinians, Israelis, and international community?

It's not my job to solve a problem successive Israeli governments created by their decades of violations of international law. Maybe they can't find something they consider an "adequate reaction" that doesn't involve mass murder and ethnic cleansing. That doesn't make those legitimate, or moral, or legal. That is a problem of their own making.

Consider that if it was reasonable for Israel to murder many times more civilians in response to a Hamas attack on civilians, it would be equally reasonable for Palestinians to murder many times more Israeli civilians than that again in response to the IDF attack on Palestinian civilians.

But nobody have an inherent right to a reaction they consider fair, if that reaction involves brutally violating the rights of innocent third parties.

It's no less terror when the IDF kills innocent civilians than when Hamas does, and seeking to legitimise it is no less immoral.

OK. But you do say what Israel shouldn't do, and at the same time, you can't provide any alternative solution. That's a really convenient position. I don't think doing nothing is an option here, so Israel does what the electorate expects it to do, that's what I meant in my comment about overreaction.

Also, I'm not sure who you mean by "they". Let's talk about specific people: past governments are mostly dead, current generation was born into this situation the same as Palestinians were born into theirs. "They" (current Israeli population) can't end the occupation; there are no feasible options. So what "they" should do in case a neighboring nation kills a thousand of "them"? Again, these people have nothing to do with occupation. The kids at that rave party most likely considered themselves as far left (just given the demographics). I myself am far left; I'm a part of "them", and I'm against the occupation, but no one is able to come up with a solution that would satisfy both sides.

So when you talk about "them", whom do you mean? Who'd you expect would find a solution if you can't even solve this smaller moral dilemma of what your country's response should be in case of Oct. 7?

edit: like, how can you overreact if no one can say what "non-over" reaction should be?