Defending the idea that large-scale civilian harm is acceptable is where your argument, such as it is, becomes truly dangerous.

Aside from all your debunked claims, and aside from your ahistorical misunderstandings of very recent history... Trying to justify "total war" against a mostly civilian population - ~50% of whom are children - is so, so far beyond the pale that I truly do not know how to reach you. For that reason, I'm out of this conversation.

I'm not defending civilian harm. I'm defending the sovereign rights of a country to defend its civilians from warmongering neighbours.

Gaza doesn't get a free pass to fire rockets at Israeli towns, invade it, and massacre thousands of its civilians on the basis that Gaza's population is allegedly 50% children.

In your world view, at what point would Israel be entitled to fight back against Gaza? How many Nova Festivals before Israel is allowed to defend itself?

And what is Israel allowed to do, bearing in mind Gaza's government urges its civilians to "bare their chests" to Israel (i.e. act as human shields), and Gaza bases military assets in schools and hospitals (well documented)?

I'm interested to know which of my arguments has been "debunked"?