> I will gloss over the way you speak about Israeli losses. I am pretty sure you wouldn't speak like that ("only 13+67 dead, oh the pity!") if it were your country.
Of course I would! We (France) have lost more military than this (and a much much higher ratio among involved soldiers) in extra territorial operations in the past few years and we don't make a big deal about how powerful the African armed groups are… They aren't, the fight are almost always one-sided, but you can't wage war without losing men.
Dozens of soldiers dying is nothing when talking about countries doing large-scale military operations. Of course, at the individual level it means 80 individual tragedies, with children losing parents, parents losing children, wifes losing husbands and so on. But on the military level, it reveals a highly asymmetric fight where you didn't really encountered resistance. Really far from your “Hamas is a powerful military” propaganda.
> But logically this way of measuring harmfulness is idiotic
Not if you actually tried to understand my point. Which I would rephrase for you: Tsahal is so dominant in this conflict it could get rid of Hamas military capabilities forever, with ease. They could completely remove the threat they cause to Israel, like how the Fatah on the West Bank is completely helpless today. But they do not do that, and it's on purpose: to wage war, you need an opponent, and nobody neither in the military, nor in the far-right in charge in the government, wants to end up without an enemy.
The former because it would means budget cut (peacetime budget vs wartime budget), the later because they would have no scapegoat to justify their racist and expansionist policy.