>proportionate response, narrow targeting, and trying not to kill civilians are good things.

How is it better to only respond with proportionate responses? If you were known as generally a good country, but could go mad at the drop of a hat, other countries would take even more steps to avoid harming you, wouldn't they?

At the same time, if you were known of flattening neighborhods or even entire cities, your enemies wouldn't be able to hide among civilians.

In either case you trade of more deaths now, for fewer dead in the future.

Unfortunately, 70+ years ago, one side was prevented from winning their war of independence. Then 50ish years ago, when they were attacked, same thing. Then 40ish years ago.

As horrible as it sounds, either the losing side needs to accept reality and concede (disbanding UNRWA would be a giant step in the right direction to force that issue), or the war should resume, and the gloves and restraints need to come off, until one or the other side sues for peace.

This is the only way to end this conflict. Otherwise it is going to simmer forever. Without the cost for continuing the conflict being made very high, it will continue. The cost for Israel to protect its citizens is very high. The cost for launching attacks against Israelis needs to be disproportionately high for a change in political approach to be considered.

Mistakes happen. Escalating a misfire at the border into a levelled capital city block pretty much guarantees the aggressor won’t survive long.