Israel accused Gazans of launching fire-kites and said that they set wildfires in Israel.

Setting wildfires can cause widespread damage, even kill. (They probably can't spread as much in arid southern Israel as they can in wooded parts of California.) Such kites are an indiscriminate weapon. If Gazans did indeed launch them — we cannot take that as certain because Israel says so — then Israel is entitled to fight back with the legitimate military means.

However, Israel's siege of Gaza, and its practice of shooting at anyone that comes near the fence (which is inside Gaza, not at the border, I have read), are morally comparable, except much larger in effect. If Israel demands compensation for wildfires, that is legitimate, but shouldn't Israel pay compensation for the fishing boats seized or sunk, the fish not caught, the cutoff from travel especially for study and medical care, and all the civilian casualties of its bombardment and shooting?