Civilians don't have to wear distinguishing marks, combatants do if they care about the laws of war and protecting the civilian population.

Just blaming Israel for all civilian harm, when it's Hamas that started the war and disguises as civilians, isn't going to help. If you care about limiting civilian harm, you should be focused on ensuring Gaza has a government that doesn't keep starting wars, or at least put on uniforms before they attack Israel. Maybe even letting civilians shelter in bunkers, rather than reserving them for terrorist use only.

Can you name a single conflict in a comparable urban setting, against terrorists that dressed as civilians, that definitely had a better civilian casualty ratio? Or are you just holding Israel to an impossible standard that no military in the real world is capable of?

> For every single Israeli killed in the October attack, Israel has killed 20 children.

It doesn't make any sense to try to judge morality based on casualty ratios. By this logic, the Nazis were the good guys in WWII, and Israel would be the good guys if they'd just turn off all their pesky air defenses.

> By this logic, the Nazis were the good guys in WWII, and Israel would be the good guys if they'd just turn off all their pesky air defenses.

Can you elaborate on this? I thought that the Nazis were pretty obviously the "bad guys" due to committing genocide and mass casualties (combatant and civilian) while trying to expand their borders.

> It doesn't make any sense to try to judge morality based on casualty ratios.

Really, even the ratio of civilian casualties, or ratio of civilian casualties to combatant casualties? Those seem pretty relevant to morality in my book, but I might be misunderstanding.