Why is it moral to throw everyone out of their homes?

Following up on H’s question: given that it is possible to collapse Hamas rule from the air and not take innocent people into account at all, and to do so without endangering our soldiers, is that moral, or do we need to take innocent people into account even if that will definitely exact a price from our soldiers? (Even if the price is minor relative to the loss of human life on the Gazan side—say, one soldier as compared to 30 innocent Gazans.)

How does this fit with what you wrote in another question I asked about the right of return? There you wrote: “Those who remained keep their property, and it is forbidden to rob them.”

It is moral because they are enemies who seek our harm and refuse to compromise. Therefore, if there were a practical way to expel them, that would indeed be the called-for solution under these circumstances, and therefore it is moral. But simply harming someone or his property when that does not solve our problem is not moral. I have written more than once that any harm that contributes to solving the problem is permitted, even if it involves uninvolved people (of course, only Palestinians).

Aviv,
in principle this is permitted and desirable. There is no reason to abandon the lives of our soldiers in order to save enemies, even if they are uninvolved. But there is some line of reasonable proportionality that I do not know how to draw precisely. You do not destroy all of Gaza in order to prevent a risk to the life of one soldier.

And to all three of you,
all this is, of course, completely theoretical. In practice there is no practical possibility of doing this.