[gershy]

Saying "I accept X using any tactic against Y that Y used against X" is meaningless in an ongoing tit-for-tat conflict unless you pick an arbitrary historical starting point. You may naturally lean towards picking an anti-israel starting point, but that isn't the only option.

Strikes against hamas leadership have war value, and I personally find proportional collateral damage justifiable.

Netanyahu is roughly (not legally but comparable) a commander in chief and targetting him likewise has war value and is justifiable. I'm not sure of ben gvir's role in military matters, but that's what I would base my answer on.

[hardbass]

How does historical starting point matter? If Y started using traditionally inadmissible tactics then it is pure foolishness for X to constrain himself. Clearly Israel saw some benefit in killing the innocent family members of this non-military personnel. And then to lob a missile at him in a civilian building in an unrelated country that is in no conflict with Israel, killing further innocents. Ben Gvir is an equivalent example in Israel, so these countries are justified in killing Gvir's family. These countries are wholly justified in attacking Israel's sites whether military or civilian for Israel struck a civilian site in a neutral country. Its very simple, military tactics themselves depend on the combatants feeling morale, it would be quite unjust and a drain on morale for them to be unable to respond in kind to inadmissible actions.

[gershy]

I'm saying I could give you an example of unconstrained attacks against israel prior to this incident - so is X sinking to the level of Y, or vice-versa? The answer is, I believe, neither - the mental model simply isn't functional. And certainly we should still both advocate against tactics that are unjustified at baseline, no? Does that make sense?

[hardbass]

We can naturally trace the history of back and forth violence, until we reach the point where we see the political entity had been founded by ingrates committing terroristic violence against the country that generously gifted them some of its colonial land.

[gershy]

You can trace it back much earlier than that - until at least the 1500s, when the conflict was present but at much less of a boil. I'm assuming you concede that "if X does it to Y, it's fine for Y to do it to X" is not a functional model here. You should at least ask yourself, "how would I need to change my outlook if I learned it was impossible to resolve who started it?"

[hardbass]

Of course, we can go all the way back to the first cavemen fighting each other. But the difference here is that there is a very clear dividing line. The locals may nor may not have liked the Ottomans or British very much but they were clearly living their lives. Until some European invaders came and illegally took over their land by force. If the peoples before this event seem mostly satisfied, and after this event inflamed, then we have the key marking point for all the nonsense.

[gershy]

Jews have had a presence in the area that is today israel/palestine for thousands of years, and jews from the diaspora have been moving to israel/palestine gradually.

I would challenge you to name an initial inciting incident, which you believe was not preceded by or in reaction to an earlier incident. I can almost guarantee you I'll be able to name an inciting event, prior to it (and you will be able to find another one before that, etc.)