As of 22 March 2025, 15.613 children, 8.304 women and 3.839 elderly Palestinians were killed
so you're saying that these were actually intended targets of Israel's precision missiles? 
or is this what's considered "limited" collateral damage with precision missiles now? What's the ratio of Israel's precision weapons fired to collateral damage of just women, children and elderly (not even counting 22.265 of innocent men)? And how does it compare to other conflicts. Hint: don't look up answers to scary questions if you don't want to loose faith in humanity.seems you admit to only seeking picky answers that dont offend your opinions, rather than seeking the crucial details which may sway your views
so atleast realise that isreal used its expensive technologically advanced weapons on key targets in iran because those targets are worth the price to strike. EG taking out the nuclear regime is a price worth paying multiple millions for
however the hamas crap happening in gaza(philistine(palestine)) is where isreal take cheap shots at hamas, but more collateral damage risk is implied
isreal actually do send warnings prior to strikes on hamas. warning residents to evacuate the area designated as a target site of hamas occupation..
hamas are the ones that threaten residents not to leave. hamas want human shields in an attempt to hope isreal wont strike hamas. hamas want collateral damage so they can propagandise that isreal are intentionally striking innocents
its hamas that are the targets and isreal send warnings before the attack.
hamas claim that evacuating is a form of genocide.. when obviously evacuating is a form of seeking safety
isreal have offered peace deals, hamas decline.
isreal have sent supplies to last palestinians until atleast october.. hama stole and hoard it
isreal have sent more supplies and defending the supplies. when thousands of people come running up(deservedly so as they are hungry and fear waiting in line will result in not everyone being fed) the defense teams of the isreal supplies first give warnings ot approach peacefully, but then when people do continue running in their thousands. warning shots are then fired infront of the oncoming crowds. and then when that didnt work yes some were shot
my personal view of those innocents fired upon in recent aid distribution centres is that the supplies should just be dropped off and spread out as heaps of supplies on the ground and defense teams just step back and lets the crowds self govern taking what they can carry,
however because that has been tried and it ended up that some of the people in the crowds were hamas that wanted to kill the aid workers and defense teams
(much like peaceful protests in america end up having a few radical anarchists that just want to throw bricks and molotov cocktails at us authorities)
and where hamas then steal the food to hoard(but not for palestinians) the new response to crowds running at aid suppliers is to warn oncoming growds to act peacefully but be determined to warn that any escalation would be treated as a threat to the aid/defense teams.
if hamas were not cowards, hiding amongst residents and instead sending all hamas troops to some empty area battlefield like real soldiers. the collateral damage would be minimised
I'm giving you a benefit of a doubt that you're not just pushing propaganda. Let me explain why everything that you said doesn't really matter and is just an attempt at rationalizing Israel's actions. It's a silly attempt at a "no loose" argument, giving Israel a carte blanche justification to massacre as many innocent people as they wish. Surely you'll see how that is not acceptable in a civilized world.
I found a good way to test is to see if someone could make the same argument trying to justify Israel killing obnoxious amount of civilians, lets say a million innocent people in a hypothetical.
Would it matter if Israel used expensive technologically if the end result is one million collateral damage?
Would it matter if Israel sent warnings prior to attacks leading to a million civilian deaths?
Would it matter what Hamas does if it's Israel actions that lead to a million innocent deaths?
Would it matter if Israel offered peace deals before it caused million deaths?
Would it matter if Israel fed everyone single one of them, bought them TVs, gave them massages etc etc etc before killing a million non combatants?
One must see how non of these would be considered viable justifications, and sponsoring those actions would make one complicit. Bottom line is collective punishment is illegal under international humanitarian law, any serious argument must not only reason why Israel actions are valid but also provide a threshold at what point Israel action would cross a line and should be considered collective punishment? Saying Israel can cause any amount of innocent deaths as long as Israel performs something before that, is simply not acceptable.