I'm guessing that intention was to say "around 10 lines", though it kind of stretches the definition if we're being picky.

Not much yet, it includes a basic half-edge implementation and a couple of small examples.

Specifically, you can construct a finite automata to represent it.

That aside, these definitions were written for a reason, even if they have no appeal to the current victims.

"The principle of proportionality (Article 51(5) (b) API) states that even if there is a clear military target it is not possible to attack it if the expected harm to civilians, or civilian property, is excessive in relation to the expected military advantage."

https://www.diakonia.se/ihl/resources/international-humanita...

So, the case that Israel has to make here is that the expected millitary advantage from the operation exceeds the collateral damage. The fact that civilians died doesn't automatically make it a war crime from an international law point of view.

The same can be said of the terror attacks. I strongly agree that the settlements are an obstacle to peace and apologize if my comment came off as aggressive. But you have to realize that this is a deadlock. No Israeli leader can stop the settlements as long as there are terror attacks, and no Palestinian leader can stop the terror attacks as long as there are settlements. That is our tragedy I suppose.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_year_problem

The conflict is insignificant in the sense that hundreds of thousands have been killed and displaced in other conflicts raging in the middle east, which has been largely ignored by the international community and the "ceasefire" crowd. Not to mention the fact that Hamas's ministry of health counts all deaths as civillians, while in truth a lot were probably combatants, and this is then treated as gospel by the international community. This is a major source of frustration among Israelis, and in my opinion an obstacle to having an honest discussion around this.

Regarding a one state solution - up to those living here. Currently, it doesn't seem to be a realistic solution, will probably be rejected by the majority, and will not end the fighting anyway.

Finally, regarding aid, Hamas received tons of money. It just chose to use it for military purposes instead of bettering the lives of their people. The tunnels alone cost an estimated 150$ million (or 200-300$ per meter). We can only imagine how much better life in Gaza would have been if this was spent otherwise.

The history of this conflict is a lot more complex than the occupier/ occupied framing would imply. For one, there was a Jewish presence here for centuries, not to mention the ancient kingdom of Judea. But I find these discussions unconstructive usually since they seem to get into these "he hit me first" kind of arguments. I agree that a two state solution is what we should be striving for. Humans are creative, if the will was there, we would find a way to connect Gaza and the West Bank (tunnel/bridge/whatever), do some territory swaps as needed, divide Jerusalem, etc. The plans for this exist, it's the leadership that's failing (on both sides).