Putting numbers on the suffering is important work, but I don't like the conclusion that are drawn from it. They are mostly invalid. If Israel attacks Palestin

Putting numbers on the suffering is important work, but I don't like the conclusion that are drawn from it. They are mostly invalid. If Israel attacks Palestine and kills a citizen, Palestine retaliates and kills 5 in return. Should they have stopped after killing just one person? It that a non-biased approach? What is the ethical approach? Kill just one? Kill nobody? Kill as much as you can? Doesn't allow for conclusions about bias either, especially not in an armed conflict.