I think you’re far too trusting when Israel says “we destroyed that because it was a clear and present danger”. It’s like the torture justifiers that jump to scenarios about dirty bombs with a ticking clock, when in reality it’s usually just used to see if they can learn something useful. The Israeli armed forces regularly destroy entire buildings for things that have nothing to do with the building itself being an immediate risk to life and limb, and assuming these 300+ people are just unfortunate and unforeseen casualties needed to save lives is giving a benefit of the doubt that isn’t earned.
How many civilian casualties is the right number so your friend’s house doesn’t get destroyed? 2? 5? 20? And if the problem is rockets fired by people from the roofs of buildings why are they responding by destroying the buildings? They’re no less able to evacuate from a building than the people living in it. Either the guys are gone and will just fire from another building or you know where they’ll be and could use an anti-personnel response. The real reason is that they want to make a statement. And if that statement kills some civilians, that’s ok and maybe even desirable. People would probably be pretty upset if more Israelis died than Palestinians.
And they’ve made those sorts of statements for decades. None of this is a sad but unavoidable step to create a safe and secure future. It’s just the same old same old, feeding an interminable cycle of death. (And that goes double to the Hamas terrorists who triggered this.)