Elaborate on "following the restoration of page" I'm unfamiliar with the term "page" in this context?

As for my position it's only that I hate how violence is somehow "justified" as if anything can give you the right to end someone else's life. It might be considered naive, utopian or simplistic by some but it really isn't. Almost every human subscribe to some level of sacredness of human life. Some extend it only to their family, some to all humans irregardless but we pretty much all agree that at least some life can't be ended morally, be it kids or whatever. Just about everyone has at sometime been a sacred life in the eyes of the majority of humans, and that the reason they stopped being seen such is almost never grounded in factual, indisputable truth but opinion, prejudice, lies, circumstances and assumptions. If we, as most agree, see humans as fallible then we shouldn't be able to declare someone's life as no longer sacred and worth protecting. And from that simple position we can extrapolate that any active attempts to end someone's life is amoral, the only moral kill is one in (proportional) self-defense. Which is of course what both Israel and Hamas argue they're doing, to varying extent. It's their main justification for why they're (morally) in the right.

Up to there I think I have a good majority on board. Then people put vastly different things into what constitutes proportional self-defense. Which is what I assume you're alluding to. Am I then right to think that your position as such is that it's still self-defense and still proportional and the two bullet points are examples of when it stops being proportional?

EDIT:

I see you've edited to "restoration of peace". What does that mean in a place that hasn't seen peace for over 80 years? What "peace" are you referring too? The pre Oct 7 status quo? If so isn't restoration of peace hinging on Israel leaving Gaza more so than anything else?