You are expected to not murder civilian, children, families.
Country A with a powerful military attacks its neighbouring country B with a weak military in order to expand its territory and gain access to resources. The population generally supports this attack, army A only attacks military targets, but army B stands no chance of repelling the attacking army and does not receive support from third parties.
In this specific situation, would we hold country B to the same standards or would we deem it acceptable if country B attacked non-military targets, civilian infrastructure, and in the extreme civilians? That does not necessarily mean that such actions would be desirable because of the resulting reaction. And there might also be higher order effects, for example a change in the understanding what is acceptable in such conflicts, that make such action undesirable in the longer term.
No, and if you try to refer to Russia attacking Ukraine, it's not acceptable when/if they attack and kill civilians.
That's still not close to what happened on 7th Oct where Hamas went out to murder random people to invoke terror, stop the Abraham negotiations and provoke a severe reaction of Israel.
No, it's not. That's the logic of terrorists, calling all US citizen guilty, and therefore calling terror acts like 9/11 justified.
Exactly like Israelis bombing civilian buildings, btw.
Terrorists justify their actions - murdering civilians - by saying that they are all guilty.
I have already realized that for a few people, everything is Israel's evil doing, but this is new and wild.
The whole post is quite off topic, though.