Your sibling analogy doesn't work. You cannot compare Hamas killing Israeli civilians with rockets to getting beaten up by a younger brother. In the former, people actually die. They don't come back to life. At the very least, they suffer permanent injuries. In the latter, the brother may get heavily bruised, but the bruises aren't permanent. He will eventually heal and continue with his life as though it never happend. Nobody dies. Also, the older brother has the choice to defend himself or retaliate. The Israeli civilians do not. Their government makes that choice for them. Any time you have one person making decisions for another person that affect their health or wellbeing, things get alot more complicated.
Although some changes could be made to make the analogy better, such as having the younger brother attack the older one with a weapon so that the damage caused is permanent, fundamentally, your analogy will still fall apart because it anthropomorphizes a country. It treats the entirety of Israel as an indivisible entity when the key issue you're trying to address (the bombing of Israeli civilians) is something that affects its parts.
the relevance of your point to mine depends on whether the older brother in the analogy represents the indirectly applicable collective will of the Israeli people or the directly applicable will of the Israeli government. If the latter is the case, then although the Israeli people do get to choose who makes the choice for them, the government still ultimately makes that choice. If the former is the case (which, I concede, seems more likely on rereading), then the people getting injured or killed still may not agree with the collective decision of their fellow Israelis. Either way, we have a situation where some people are making a decision for others that affect their health or wellbeing. This is very different than the situation with the brothers in which the person who makes the decision is the only one affected by its consequences.
