I wouldn’t call those intentional. Collateral damage in a defensive war against terrorists who are hiding among civilians is different from intentionally seeking to kill children as your only objective.
Even if Israel is definitively shown to be genocidal, what the hell do you do with that? Because the result of that determination is that you now have a conflict where both sides are genocidal against the other. How do you pick a side in that scenario without implicitly supporting genocide? Do you try to determine whether Palestinian lives are worth more or less than Israeli/Jewish lives, using your own arithmetic? Try to argue that some forms of genocide aren't really genocide when you "really think about it"?
I think it's an impossible problem from an ethics perspective.
I agree that thousands of children have been killed in Gaza - by both Israel and Hamas. Trying to pin all of them on Israel only encourages Hamas to kill more.
My echo chamber? I read the Gazan and other Arab telegram channels in Arabic. I write back and forth with people in Gaza (Gazans, who live there) every few days. You levy at me unfounded accusations.
So as long as there is one Hamas left standing, everyone around must die. This is what you mean?
Edit: can the non-Hamas surrender and avoid getting killed? They can't and the situations on the ground aren't that different. A Warzaw and Gazan survivor would have a lot in common.
Can the non-Hamas surrender and live? No, they can just stay and die. Tell me, what should a non-Hamas member in Gaza do right now to avoid getting bombed?
> what should a non-Hamas member in Gaza do right now to avoid getting bombed
Evacuate when told to by the IDF. It's terrible, but it's better than being bombed.
But you are correct - the responsibility to end the war and prevent further civilian casualties lies squarely with Hamas. Pressure them to return the hostages, don't pressure Israel to capitulate to terrorists.
