That wasn’t the question. I mean, you don’t have to answer - but it was a pretty straightforward one:
Let’s say, objectively, one side deliberately targets civilians, while the other tries to avoid doing so.
How is the side that avoids targeting civilians supposed to respond in that situation?
Sometimes the true answers aren't the ones you want, and deconstruct the question more than they resolve it. If someone asks a politician whether he still beats his wife, the answer isn't a straightforward yes or no.
Israel isn't fighting a hypothetical war its fighting a real one. Israel didn't minimize civilian casualties against Gaza in the way a better planned war would, and its strike against Iran was pre-emptive and aggressive. These aren't consistent with some imagined international law that would condone all actions of Israel and condemn all her foes. A war that can be explained by the rational self interest of a nation and the geopolitical power dynamics of a multipolar world aren't easily squeezed into a reductionist view or morality or legality.
When Nazis were hung for crimes against humanity at Nuremberg, they were convicted on definitions applied to them ex post facto, under jurisdictions to which they were never subject. We appointed ourselves their judge by the simple fact of our victory, nothing established in treaties or precedent of international relations. We made it up as we went along, because we had to, because the crimes were as novel as the need to punish them, because we had the opportunity to show both power and fairness. If we abided by a strict rules based order of the world we'd have set the worst monsters