I don’t have much time to continue this conversation with you (and I’ll ignore the attempts at belittling my stance), but I will just add that Liberalism, Idealism, etc are really only relevant when the other side(s) are also abiding by those norms. As soon as one side pursues Realist actions (like Bibi, Hamas, or Putin), then the only response is to match their force.

Also:

realism underscores the competitive and conflictual nature of global politics

realism asserts that the dynamics of the international arena revolve around states actively advancing national interests and prioritizing security

realism argues that states operate in a realm devoid of inherent justice, where ethical norms may not apply

each of the parties choose to protect their own self-interests at the expense of the other participant

This illustrates how a realist state might interact with another state; whether to protect its own resources or risk everything to achieve its goals

Just to try to clarify my reasoning on even bringing this up - I’m not trying to justify individual soldiers’ actions in a specific conflict. I’m trying to make it clear that in state vs. state conflicts, what you would typically consider to be norms go out the window as each will prioritize their security and power. Thus, when one that is weaker attacks another that is stronger, you should expect an overwhelming response