How does who started it matter to those killed, wounded, or unable to evacuate for medical reasons?
The leaders of a nation have to consider variables outside the grief and hardship of individuals caught in the crossfire of war. Do you really believe that the actual reasons for a war, or who is fighting on each side of that war, are not morally relevant to the merits of the conflict? I'm trying to think of words that are not disrespectful to convey how....wildly disconnected from reality I find that perspective. Think through what you're saying.
You are completely missing the point. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. You could argue fault all the way back to 1880, and it won't result in any meaningful answer. What matters is that the killing of innocent civilians stops. Nothing, and I mean nothing--no past attacks, no history of victimhood, no hatred or anger-- excuses the continued bombing of civilians.
Civilians die in war. In every war of sufficient scale that has ever been fought, certainly in modern history since WWI, civilians have been killed as collateral damage in the fighting. That
doesn't mean those injuries and deaths aren't sad. That
doesn't mean the loved ones of those killed won't suffer. That
doesn't mean civilians should be targeted or killed indiscriminately. That
doesn't mean civilian refugees should not receive humanitarian aid and empathy. It does mean that civilian death is an ugly reality of war.
So unless your argument is that
no war should ever be fought ever for any reason - which I hope is not your perspective, then we have to arrive at the conclusion that "no civilians can ever be killed" is not a reasonable standard by which to wage warfare. "Everyone should just stop fighting" is a nice ideal, but not a realistic answer to international military conflict. The situation is more complex than that. Allowing literal terrorist organizations to retain political power is a recipe for
even more death and suffering than is already happening. We're dealing with a group of terrorists who embed themselves in civilian populations to maximize civilian deaths. What is Israel militarily allowed to do in response to that, in your view?