Again: the situations are not comparable. Russia was unprovoked and has a stated objective of annexing a sovereign country. Israel is in fact under military threat (was, in fact, attacked, gravely), from territory it has occupied since 1967. It is unsurprising that the international responses are not equivalent.

A short way to sum this up is: regardless of the distaste many in the west (myself included) have for the means by which Israel is pursuing it's goal, the west is unanimous in support of that actual goal: no western state believes Hamas should be left to govern Gaza, even as many probably do quietly hope to haul Netanyahu to the Hague (if the Israelis don't imprison him first).

Meanwhile: every western state actively, viscerally opposes Russia's goal.

Again: When it comes to crimes against humanity, that doesn’t matter. Signatories to the Geneva convention convention are expected to uphold international humanitarian laws even when greater crimes are committed against them. The same applies to the Genocide convention. The international community is supposed to punish signatories which violate these convention, and in the case of Israel, they routinely don’t.

It in fact matters a great deal, as you can see.

Just to make this clear. What you are saying is that: There are some circumstances where we can expect countries to violate international humanitarian laws, and under those circumstances crimes against humanity should be unpunished, and even enabled or supported. Is this correctly understood?

No, I'm saying that military aid to Ukraine and Israel are orthogonal to international criminal concerns about the way both conflicts are being prosecuted.

Everything you wrote following the word "should" was abusive. Please don't write things like that; I've done nothing to merit incivility from you.