The problem here is no matter what article (fact) we produce, your response is to dismiss our...narrative, with your own. so when we see 20+ villages being bombed into the stone age, scorched earth, you see legitimate military targets being neutralised. Or, we see women and children being targeted and you see unfortunate casualties of Hamas (or Hezbollah's) terrorist (or say armed resistance) activities. Israel is in another country right now, an invasion, it has no intention of allowing citizens of that country to return to their homes and the Israeli military is ensuring there are no homes or land to return to. If Israel wanted to be safe, having cordial relations would be a good start, but instead what we see is destruction at a level not seen anywhere in the world for a long long time.
Lets talk about human shields - you say, its Hamas / Hezbollah responsible, and that they use human shields (as they are embedded in the communities). What about Israel? it is a documented fact - by Amnesty International, B'Tselem, and even Israel's own Supreme Court, that Israeli forces have used Palestinian civilians as human shields during operations in Gaza. So if we are assigning blame for civilian deaths based on who uses human shields, that blame runs in both directions. You can't use that argument to absolve Israel while ignoring its own record. Well, you can use that argument but it does not hold.
You are trying to turn concrete military reality into a philosophical debate about 'narratives,' but facts aren't a matter of opinion.
First, let's talk about your Supreme Court 'gotcha.' You completely scored an own goal. The fact that Israel’s independent Supreme Court openly investigated, debated, and legally banned soldiers from using the 'neighbor procedure' decades ago is the ultimate proof of a democracy with a rule of law. When individual Israeli soldiers violate that law, they are prosecuted.
Now look at the other side: Hamas and Hezbollah don't have rogue soldiers breaking rules human shielding is their entire official military strategy. They don't have a Supreme Court banning it; they have leadership explicitly telling civilians to stay in the line of fire so their deaths can be used as PR weapons. To equate a democracy that legally bans a practice with a terrorist organization that builds its entire warfare model around it is intellectual dishonesty at its peak.
Second, you say Israel should have tried 'cordial relations.' Israel completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005, tore down every single settlement, and left behind a thriving agricultural infrastructure. The response? Gaza elected Hamas, tore down the greenhouses to build rocket launchers, and fired thousands of missiles at our towns. In Lebanon, Israel withdrew to the internationally recognized border in 2000. The response? Hezbollah built a massive terror fortress on our fence.
We tried 'cordial relations' by retreating to our borders, and we got October 7th and thousands of rockets in return.
You see 'villages being bombed'; we see the concrete launchpads that fired anti-tank missiles into our homes for a year. Israel is invading southern Lebanon because UN Resolution 1701 completely failed to keep Hezbollah away from our border. If a country is attacked unprovoked for a year, it has every right under international law to cross that border and destroy the infrastructure meant to annihilate it. You can call it a 'narrative' all you want, but Israel is choosing survival over your approval.