Answer

Hello.
I was indeed asked about his remarks, but I haven't heard the lecture, so it's hard for me to comment substantively. In general, I think that on these issues we're all "dossim"—that is, it's impossible to conduct a truly serious discussion. Everyone digs into their own position and doesn't really listen to other people's positions. In effect, they dehumanize them. That's true of both the left and the right. Tell me who the speaker is and I'll tell you what he'll say. Tell me who said it and I'll tell you what people will say about him.
I completely agree with Ilai that there is a sport of attacking anyone who belongs to the "wrong" camp (which I myself am really not a fan of either, but I try to maintain intellectual balance), and many times people take things out of context and present completely legitimate statements as though they were Nazi. Demagoguery is thriving. Therefore I don't have much trust in such criticisms unless I've heard the lecture. I will only say that I do not accept the automatic protests on the other side against harming uninvolved people. Not at all. These are things that come from the gut. Killing babies is not necessarily wrong, despite the heartache. Morality resides in the head, not in the gut. Gaza is one huge breeding ground for terror, from young to old. Their educational system deals with this, their government deals with this (and this is not a gang that took over them but a government that was elected, enjoys their support, and acts in their name), and therefore the claim that there is a problematic and murderous collective there is completely correct. The comparison to Amalek is entirely called for (though from the standpoint of Jewish law and interpretation, of course, it is far from trivial. But morally, it is a completely reasonable comparison). Just look at how weapons and Hamas equipment are found in every house, and how thousands of civilians cooperate with Hamas in the massacre and in the events of the Black Sabbath and to this day (guarding the hostages, etc.), and how it enjoys enormous support among the Palestinian public in general (to my satisfaction, much less so among Israeli Arabs). It is simply one huge fanatical terror gang.
And still, it is clear that one must not harm someone who is not a member of Hamas without good reason. Hamas members, in my opinion, should be shot without restraint (of course when it is verified that they are indeed Hamas members), regardless of whether they are holding a weapon or not. But other Gazans may be harmed only if this is required in order to achieve our goals (Israel's security and the return of the hostages). If it is necessary, there is no problem with harming whoever needs to be harmed, and as many as need to be harmed, including babies. There will certainly be heartache, and that's a good thing, but there is no moral problem. To explain this further I would need to give a lecture on the law of a collective pursuer, and this is not the place (I have written about this elsewhere). But I am writing this because the gut is not what should be speaking here, but the head, and to say that I do not accept these criticisms as long as I haven't heard the lecture myself. From previous times when I examined such criticisms, they were usually demagogic and took things out of context.