Well, I definitely won't try to have a conversation with someone who thinks that killing 1000 civilians in cold blood is kind of ok. One can't say that Gaza has been steadily eradicated when its population is about double what it was 20 years ago.
Please point out where I said that killing a thousand people is "kind of ok".
How about you read what I responded to. None of what he wrote is close to what you responded with. His idea is that the whole idea of a ground assault is a crime - not that the way that Israel executed it is too aggressive. Those are two very different things.
MrSquished paraphrased a bunch of news sources and did not lend an opinion about a ground assault being a crime. Maybe you would also care to point out where he did?
You responded with a vague "well what should they have done" in response to a non-existent comment regarding the moral question of ground assaults in general.
I don't see how, after more than 1000 civilians murdered in cold blood, Israel had any other option but to go in and destroy Hamas troops.
Ignore Israel vs Palestine for a moment and consider this: Nations A and B are at war. Nation A's tactic is guerilla war style in that they strike from the shadows and disappear back into Nation A's populace. Nation B has the choice of staging an assault into civilian zones of Nation A, however bear in mind two factors:
1) Military forces are trained to carry out specific objectives, to kill whomever they're told without question. Provided that they do as they're told, the vast majority of those doing the killing will never face official, direct repercussions. They have to employ split-second decision making: Friend or foe. Military discipline is far easier to maintain provided that they face a military force like their own without any other factors, as black-and-white a situation as possible.
2) The whole point of nation A's tactic is that their forces are not easy to tell apart from civilians. Furthermore, some civilians will be actively helping the forces, some will be sympathetic at the very least, some may coincidentally be in the vicinity of nation B's forces, some may be coerced/forced into helping in some way. A civilian at any point could become a threat because they no doubt perceive Nation B's forces as a threat.
Nation B's military force is not going to be able to tell the difference in a split-second decision, so chances are what are they going to do: Fire. A child holding a gun or maybe-a-gun could kill them just like an adult could.
If Nation B is truly interested in minimising the loss of civilian life, their soldiers are going to be relying on split-second judgements far more often than orders. A soldier is going to want to stay alive. Ordering them into such a conflict is going to cause a lot of problems, such as widespread civilian loss of life, soldiers with more psychopathic mentalities are going to have an absolute field day due to the lack of oversight and accountability, soldiers with some kind of moral code are far more likely to end up with PTSD because they've either killed someone who didn't deserve it, or they feared they might have done, or they end up dead because they hesitated when they should have fired.
If Nation B is truly interested in a morally righteous outcome and for some kind of lasting peace to result, then they must be aware of the fact that every civilian their forces kill is damaging their cause two-fold, 1) because killing civilians is wrong and 2) every civilian killed equals a very high chance of rallying more people to Nation A's cause.
Israel had a choice. Had they chosen the highly problematic scenario I've just described, it would have turned out badly. Instead they chose the even worse option: Genocide.
You should read up about the Ireland - UK conflict if you think Israel had no choice. Peace was not achieved between Ireland and the UK through a ground assault, because strangely enough, murdering tonnes of civilians isn't a very peaceful act.