Whose fault is it that you can't go home? Is it the government that lost the war, or the government that won the war and won't let you go home? Or somebody else?
I'd say that it depends on whose fault the war is.
OK! Could it be that for you it depends very strongly on whose ox is gored? Since of course you believe that none of the wars were Israel's fault, then everything Israel has done during or after the wars was justified.
So, after WWII the USSR adjusted their border with Poland westward. They quite reasonably wanted a bigger buffer to prepare for the next war. Of course we all agree that the war was 100% the fault of Germany and 0% the fault of the USSR, so the USSR was 100% justified in what they did to Poland. Right?
And, when Yugoslavia broke up, the various ethnic groups that Titov had kept under control got loose and wanted to continue their fighting. This was the Balkans.... Some of the sides used institutional rape as a war tactic. We tended to blame the Serbians because they had gotten support from the Nazis during the war so we were predisposed to consider them the enemy. So anyway, let's decide whose fault it was they were fighting. After we decide which side to blame, then we can say that all the rapes by the other side weren't the fault of the rapists, they were the fault of the guys we think started the war.
You think Israelis didn't commit rape. That's something that tends to happen during wartime. While the US army was in France during and after WWII there were a few hundred reported rapes of french women. The US military's response was that we'd be glad to hang the rapists if we could find them, but we couldn't. So we offered for our medics to give the women free medical care. Of course we tried to minimize rape of french women, it was utterly against our policies and our interests.
After the war the soviet army raped a lot of women in east germany, pretty much anybody they wanted to. We say there wasn't much of that in the US-controlled areas, and I can believe it. The german rationing system had broken down and people were very hungry, and US soldiers had plenty. It usually doesn't take more than a few weeks of real hunger to get a woman to wear a "Will Frack For Food" sign.
We talk like there wasn't much rape during or after our Civil War. It was a time when southerners were very hesitant to talk about it when it did happen. Kind of like, say, arabs today. I have essentially no data about how much the Israeli army (or the paramilitary gangs) have raped, and you don't either. But if it someday turns out that there was pretty much and it was policy, I predict you will say it was the fault of the arabs who created a problem for Israel, and not the Israelis who responded with rape. That's consistent with your stand otherwise.
Does it matter whether they are absolutely morally wrong or whether they just offend me and people like me?
I don't see that it makes any difference at all.
I will agree that you shouldn't need some theory of absolute morality to protect you from feeling guilty when you defend yourself against people who try to kill and enslave you. But that's basically my argument - that even if you're right, it's irrelevant: if there is no absolute morality "from on high" that says it's wrong to perpetrate injustice, that doesn't mean we should either perpetrate it or put up with it.
Sure. We come up with morality that suits us, and we enforce it as best we can. Quoting Discordian scripture,
"Everybody I know who is right always agrees with ME"But when we're raising our kids, as an example, it seems to help if we make them feel guilty about bullying others and things like that... even when they think they won't get caught.
I don't think it's right to lie to children for my convenience.
And getting people to feel guilty is an important part of social dominance, but it doesn't seem to improve their behavior. People feel guilty to prove they're good people even though they continue to do bad things.