That's so wrong it doesn't stand the simplest smell test.
Soldier: Captain they're firing on us, what should we do?
Capatain: Wait till they kill one of us, we can't fire back until then.
It is most certainly a war. It will stop being a war when one of the sides stops fighting. Since Hamas is still attacking the IDF and still attacking civilians in Israel with rockets and still holding hostages we still have a war.
In Lenbanon the ratio of casualties was also skewed. Again it is some magical fairy thinking that Israel would allow Hezbollah to keep firing rockets at its civilian population centers in order to meet some casualty ratio metric. Again it doesn't pass the simplest smell test. I think you need to look a bit deeper at why you're saying this and think a bit more critically. Once Hezbollah effectively surrendered, and we have an agreement, there is no more war. They could have not started that war, they could have surrendered earlier, the outcome is on them. Just like the outcome in Gaza is on Hamas.
The ratio of casualties means absolutely nothing. It pretty much means Hamas fighters are ok to keep fighting even if a lot of them get killed. No country will stop fighting when its enemy is still fighting just to meet some casualty count ratio.
In terms of "someone who looks like them" Hamas' choice of having its combatant pretend to be civilians and embed amongst civilians is the root cause of a higher number of uninvolved getting killed.
EDIT:
Basically the statement that we can make value/moral judgements strictly based at looking at post-event casualty counts is just very obviously false. This is true on the micro when e.g. police kills some criminals and the ratio may be infinity. It's true in self defense situations where you kill any number of attackers trying to kill you. and it's true in the macro, there are many wars when one parts manages to have an overwhelming victory and certainly many examples of battles in history that are like that.
In modern times there is no such requirement on a military according to "international law". The only requirement is that a specific action serves a military purpose, the number of combatant killed is unlimited and collateral damage is also acceptable. There are protections for soldiers that surrender but in this specific situation because Hamas combatants do not wear uniforms they don't even get those protections.
Early in the war when Hamas was launching massive barrages of rockets into Israel and has killed many civilians Israel was totally justified to use deadly force to stop those launchers. If they're buried in shafts then using heavier bombs is also justified. Hamas is the responsible party since its actions are those that created the need to stop this. Israel's warning to civilians to evacuate was above and beyond what other western armies have typically done in these situations. Hamas' using force to make civilians stay is again on Hamas.
If you want to call this an asymmetric war then by all means. It still doesn't change anything.
And just a by the way, in the war US led against the Islamic State there were: 6 US serviceman killed, 16 US serviceman wounded. France who also fought the war had 2 serviceman killed. 83,000 ISIS militants killed (at least 13k civilians killed by coalition strikes). Take that for a casualty ratio.
