Who said anything about "maximizing Palestinian civilian casualties"? The GP claimed that Isreal doesn't kill Palestinians, which it quite clearly does.
I'm not being pedantic, no. I'm pointing out that the comment claimed that Israel does not kill Palestinians. It made no mention of "collateral civilian deaths", it made no mention of "maximising Palestinian civilian casualties", it made no mention of "civilians" at all - these are all things that you brought into the conversation. The comment claimed "Israel does not kill Palestinians", no matter how many straw men you want to introduce to appease your own blood lust, this is patently false.
In theory, there is obviously a difference between the two things you mentioned. However, from what we can see happening in reality, there is no indication that Israel's military makes that distinction. See this article for a summary of the destruction up to November 12: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-war-inflicts-...
Let us assume that Israel is truthful about every claim they made about Hamas being inside or under pretty much every school, hospital, religious object, and other building that is normally protected from being attacked by the international law of war, and let us assume that their indiscriminate destruction of such objects is legitimate. Does that naturally extend to also include over 45% residential housing units (from the article) absolutely needing to be destroyed or damaged?
From the article: "An Israeli reporter who was taken to see the Gazan town of Beit Hanoun by the Israeli military reported on Sunday that "barely a single inhabitable building remains standing". More than 52,000 people had lived there before the war."
Was the killing of more than 4500 children also absolutely unavoidable, and not just a part of a campaign of vengeful destruction and killing to satisfy bloodlust that is bordering on genocide?
The reports from the ground just don't match the stated goals of the Israeli government and military, nor their stated excuses for so much bloodshed. Let us for the moment pretend that naming killed innocent civilians 'collateral damage' somehow makes their killing okay, and that saying that "Hamas hides among civilians and uses them as human shields" somehow makes it okay to just bomb all those civilians, hoping to also get some militants in the process. We can all make a very good guess that had Hamas fled inside an Israeli city and hid among that city's population, there wouldn't have been indiscriminate bombing of that city with all the killed Israeli citizens being merely proclaimed collateral damage and "oh well, hamas used them as human shield, so we had to bomb them to death". There would have been very precise military action involving a lot of ground fighting, in order to actually minimize civilian deaths, because then it would be civilians that they actually care about. Palestinians, on the other hand... unfortunate human shields and all. Their deaths seem welcome, if anything. And that's genocidal intent.
