Why not Europe or the US? These countries are the ones partly funding and enabling the onslaught. Shouldn't they take some responsibility for this cruelty?

When have the victors of a war ever thrown open their gates to the defeated masses and allowed themselves to be occupied?

So we should use historical data from past genocides to decide what happens with the current population of an occupied population in which the majority are children?
So not learning from history, but repeating it. Admittedly that is what Israel is doing. They said "never again" and turned it into "our turn" and now they are building a camp to house the unwanted, undesired population. I think i see your point.

Well, not all of them but sure , many of them.
Kill them as long as they still want to kill me.
The moment they’ll denounce their non realistic demands and stop their 100 years war against Zionism - that’s when we’ll have peace. Until then we’ll proceed as we are now.

Aaah genocide masked as self defence. How poetic. A country in blatant violation of all international law with an unknown and unconfirmed nuclear arsenal who have occupied another part of country and is currently committing genocide against the occupied population wants to kill more of them because they don't like you. Why don't they like you? It's a mystery for the ages.

The two parts of your post are contradictory. Of course we should use historical data and learn from it. Minimizing harm at this point means providing a decisive end to a perpetual conflict in a way that minimizes the kinds of casualties we saw in other forced partitions or mass exile. As I said right at the outset of this war, the best thing Israel could have done was build relocation camps outside Gaza and then be able to filter civilians out of the war zone a

It's just pure irony isn't it that Israel is using its past as a justification of it's present actions to build a "greater israel" or some would say "reich" in which they can finally have peace and harmony.
Building camps and forcible displacing civilians is a war crime btw, so maybe not that. Not that israel gives a shit what a war crime is and what isn't.

Yeah.
A. All what you wrote is not relevant and/or negates claim for self defence. Strong country can be attacked by a weaker enemy.
B. we’ll proceed with the killing as long as needed. To my point of view of course - I believe it’s necessary as long as the Palestinians declares war over Zionism and keeps their ‘refugee’ status.
C. I don’t care if they like me or not. It’s non of my business. You’ll be better off managing your affairs without caring so much if someone likes or dislikes you. I just want to live in peace and raise my children.

A. As per international law you cannot claim self defence from an occupied territory. But sure.
B. If your end goal is to create a greater israel then ofc you will keep killing.
C. "I only want peace".. proceeds to bomb 5 neighbouring countries...

Hamas is embedded in a civilian population. The only humanitarian way to combat Hamas would be to separate them from their human shields.
Proportional responses to war crimes which serve to reduce harm, are not war crimes.