i mean to be clear i think we can all agree it is bad when civilians die. however the israeli state's policies as a settler-colonial genocidal project means that for decades it has been constructing a situation where it is impossible for palestinians to fight back against daily brutal violence without israeli civilians being caught in the crossfire so i think if you are upset about those deaths you should take it up with the government that built cities and invited settlers onto recently stolen land and then committed indiscriminate massacres against the people it was stolen from for decades. but of course most of the people handwringing about israeli civilians are not actually concerned with human life--or if they are, not with a worldview that recognizes palestinians as human

when people say "what about all the palestinian civlians that have been murdered on an ongoing basis as part of the eliminiationist status quo" they're not arguing "oh palestinian civilians died so israeli civilians should die too". they're pointing out that this status quo is one that can only be changed by actual armed resistance, and because of the aformentioned decades of israeli policy of 'moving civilians into a war zone to settle on stolen land' that's going to inevitably result in some level of harm coming to those civilians. and sure in a vacuum we can all agree that's bad, but condemning the fight for palestinian liberation on those grounds implictly makes the argument that the constant deaths of palestinians was tolerable in comparison, that the status quo should have been maintained--that that violence, of constant bombings of the starved and blockaged gaza strip, was preferable to this violence, where those people actually fight back. this is not a case of violence vs. peace--it is a case of one violence vs. another, and framing it as the former is the same as a fullthroated endorsement of the first, normalized violence, sanctioned by the israeli state and its imperialist overlords in washington