It's your call on the conversation side. I'm happy you made it clear where you're coming from and how you look at things.

I'd like to think you just have the facts wrong. Facts and truth are key. For example the fact that when Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 it did not blockade it. It blockaded it in 2007 when Hamas took power. It has not "waged a one-sided war against people they have blockaded in ghetto". That is just factually wrong. The one-sided waging of war was from the Gaza side. Applying core/moral values should start with a correct evaluation of the factual reality (and yes, it's a complex reality, life is hard).

The Hamas states they want to kill all the Jews in Israel. They act towards that goal. The Hamas engages in activities that are morally wrong beyond any doubt. There is no context in this world where Hamas is justified because they are oppressed. They are antisemites. They are Nazi. The atrocities they committed against Jews on Oct 7th are a new standard of evil.

The US has its problems. I don't think that's directly relevant. The US might be supporting Israel for the wrong reasons but I think basing your evaluation of Israel's moral position on that is incorrect. Russia, China and Iran, support the opposing side here. I don't think those are clearly beacons of good.

EDIT: I want to clarify my "Gaza waging a war on Israel" position. I am referring to the entire period since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Not to the current situation. It is true, and factual, that Israel is at war with Gaza right now. A war started by Gaza. Israel is fairly powerful but I don't think that is a moral argument. If Israel was weaker does that really change the moral viewpoint? Israel has tried to avoid as much as possible the war it is engaged in right now, and possibly if it hadn't done so (i.e. if it went to war sooner) there would be a lot less lives lost, so the moral argument against Israel re-occupying Gaza or not attacking Gaza because it is more powerful feels a bit hollow. It was obviously not powerful enough to protect its citizens and we are dealing with an asymmetric war. With all its power it has so far been unable to stop rockets being launched from Gaza into Israel. Its power has pretty big limits.

EDIT2: I have a problem with the "oppression" narrative. I think generally oppression is not a justification for violence and we have plenty of examples of oppressed peoples throughout history that have not resorted to the kind of violence we see in this conflict. It is also intellectually shallow. I have a similar problem with the term that comes with it in this conflict which is "occupation". Again, occupation is the de-facto status of most of the planet, and it does not justify the kind of violence we see in this conflict. I'm just talking about the Palestinians here. Israel does many questionable things as well which we can go into if we wish. The other problem I have which I already pointed out in this thread is the redefinition of words. I think using words like "ghetto" is problematic. My dictionary says ghetto is either "a jewish quarter in a city" or "a poor urban area occupied primarily by a minority group or groups.". The use of this term by pro-Palestinians is meant to either equate Israel to the Nazis. I.e. they intentionally want to say Israel in this story is the Nazi Germans and the Palestinians are the Jews. Or the other intent is to try and diminish the original meaning of the usage, i.e. to belittle the historical suffering of Jews. This usage is factually wrong and I would say is insidious (to put mildly). I'm surprised to see that Jewish people adopt this terminology (Ghetto) but I guess nothing can surprise me at this point. I think points can be made without redefining words and appealing to emotions and conversely redefining words means we can't actually have a discussion because we're talking past each other. I would almost call some of the tactics we're seeing "intellectual terrorism". It seeks to broadly disable the ability of the other side to engage in a discussion and to intimidate them. I also want to make it absolutely clear that all the above doesn't change the morality of the conflict. I.e. I'm not saying "it is justified to attack civilians because they engage in tactics that I can consider insidious.". If you have a self defense situation as a person, the threshold for using deadly force isn't a function of the personality of the other side, it should purely be a function of their actions and the situation.