without Hamas as a party, she didn’t see how any order could be complied with without Israel unilaterally withdrawing and being forced to accept subsequent attacks

Yet another stereotypical pro-Israel whataboutism. There’s a hell of a lot of wiggle room between “don’t keep bombing and starving Palestinian civilians while making most of them homeless on purpose” and “unilaterally withdraw completely”.

Also, it falsely assumes that it’s a conventional war between two armies with somewhat equal conditions, which could hardly be further from the truth: Israel has one of the largest and most advanced militaries in the world and Hamas’ “fighters” are a few thousand scattered terrorists with whatever weaponry they can cobble together in spite of the embargo.

most requested orders amounted to “follow IHL”, which Israel is already bound to order or no order

Which would make it a stern reminder, since they’re currently ignoring that obligation completely. That doesn’t invalidate the order at all.

she believes SA is conflating Hamas and Palestinian civilians in several key arguments

Because so is the Israeli government. Every civilian location they bomb, they claim was a secret Hamas base, hardly ever producing a shred of proof or even reliable information that might make them mistakenly think that’s the case.

I didn’t find anything overtly biased in her analysis

As demonstrated above and in my original comment, she’s either extremely biased or totally incompetent. Which in turn means that your assessment comes from

a) your own bias,

b) your own ignorance,

c) you being deliberately dishonest or

d) more than one of the above.

My money’s on d.