I don't disagree with your sentiment but isn't the reasoning here that in a war carried out with bombs then civilians are not intended victims but are 'collateral' in that scary euphemism? Shooting a civilian, the intention is to kill the civilian.
Given the people in Israel's kibbutz/ settlements / communities are well-armed, and given women and young people serve in the IDF, militants who storm a settlement as part of their resistance against Israel's land theft and brutal repression would presumably need to mow civilians down with machine gunfire and grenades as they cannot see who is inside a building or distinguish between civilians who are trying to kill them and those who aren't.
https://nypost.com/2023/10/10/israeli-woman-25-hailed-as-hero-for-killing-terrorists-leading-security-team-at-kibbutz/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67089113The militants don't have the ability to only pick out armed targets in the chaos of an attack on a settlement where people are trying to kill them so they would carry out indiscriminate gunfire and throw grenades, much like the rationale offered as to why unarmed civilians and children are killed by bombing campaigns. If people want to give the militants missiles and planes instead (and defensive technology to protect the planes from missiles trying to destroy them on the ground) I am sure the militants would be happy to use them to indiscriminately bomb armed and unarmed Israelis (like Israel is doing to the Palestinians) rather than just shoot them - you could kill a lot more people more quickly with missiles.
So that sounds to me like an artificial distinction by the people with the bombs to try to absolve themselves of moral responsibility. Hence lots of people don't appear to find the attempted distinction convincing.
Israel and their supporters can certainly try that line but the amount of anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian feeling around the world is possibly because people aren't fooled and can see the hypocrisy, although Israel tries to silence criticism by saying it is driven by antisemitism.
My impression is that most people don't despise Israel because they dislike Jews, they despise Israel because of its policies towards Palestinians from the time the Zionist project was put in motion over the objections of the Arabs being colonised, following European savagery to Jews. The same way people despised the Afrikaans leadership in South Africa during apartheid because of policies enacted and brutality towards a particular race.
At this point judging from the mass anti-Israel protests and waving of Palestinian flags, it seems like a lot of people would rather be called antisemitic than have a troubled conscience by not speaking up against Israel's brutal bombing of Palestinian civilians and its siege of Gaza.
If you are bombing in a civilian area and the militants are hidden then possibly it reminds people of the bombing of Vietnamese villages to kill Vietcong.
The US Air Force also claimed they had precision weapons and organised a bombing campaign of Northern Vietnam from 1965-1972. The aim was to destroy military and industrial targets in the north and hit strategic targets in Vietnamese cities. The north also had little industry to destroy. A great deal of the military infrastructure was underground or in caves. during the Vietnam war.
The US lost popular support and faced mass demonstrations against their conduct in Vietnam. This offensive resulted in an increase in volunteers for the Vietcong.
Israel's bombing campaign is just creating more support and recruitment for militants fighting Israel. Presumably that's what Israel wants because it will get more arms and funding from the US as a result.
