Not fringe, no.

Definitely cringe tho.

Are you sure?

Yes.

This seems pretty nazi to me.

Tolerating civilian casualties within war-efforts is an extremely different thing than specifically favouring to hunt and eradicate them while possibly propagating some narrative like they are lesser humans or some fucked up racist shit like that. If that's your standpoint on labeling Nazis however, then every nation which ever participated in a hot war with civilian casualties is probably pretty nazi to you.

Also germans online are one of the loud supporters of yet another genocide.

Not in my experience. But sure, it's good emotional bait to blindly generalise over all germans and call them Nazis who favour genocide. How about you look for some verifiable numbers before reasoning from your individual experience with "online germans"?

Here:

Die militärische Reaktion Israels auf die Terror-Anschläge der Hamas vom 7. Oktober 2023 geht inzwischen für mehr als die Hälfte (57 Prozent) zu weit (+7 im Vgl. zu März), jeder Fünfte (21 Prozent) hält sie für angemessen (-7), für 4 Prozent geht sie nicht weit genug (-1).

Source: press report about a representative survey on the opinions of german's regarding Israel's war efforts.
https://presse.wdr.de/plounge/tv/das_erste/2024/08/20240808_ard_deutschlandtrend_israel.html
(From last August.)

Translation:
"The military response of Israel to the Hamas terror attacks on October 7, 2023, now goes too far for more than half (57 percent) of people (+7 compared to March), one in five (21 percent) considers it appropriate (-7), and for 4 percent it does not go far enough (-1)."

On a side note, the article you've linked from middle east monitor cited the foreign minister of Germany a bit wrong. Here is the official full translation of her speech: https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/newsroom/news/-/2679832

With the following section in the middle east monitor article:

'Self-defence means not only attacking terrorists but destroying them. When Hamas terrorists hide behind people, behind schools… civilian places lose their protected status because terrorists abuse it.'

And here the full official translation of that part:

That’s why we have made it clear time and again that self-defence means, of course, not only attacking terrorists, but also destroying them. This’s why I have made it so clear that when Hamas terrorists hide behind people, behind schools, then we end up in very difficult waters. But we’re not shying away from this. This is why I made it clear at the United Nations that civilian sites could lose their protected status if terrorists abuse this status.

The article did not appropriately mark the sections which were omitted in the quote. It also changed words, omitted words or sections without marking it and thereby changed the tone of the quote and misrepresented it in a way significant enough for me to be so nitpicky about it.

Most importantly, the minister highlights, that terrorists abusing protected civilian sites poses a very difficult situation which could potentially lead to a loss of the protection status.

Furthermore, she goes on about the importance of humanitarian aid in Gaza. And also remarks how Germany supports the two-state solution to ensure security in the region, peace for Palestine and peace for Israel.

Does that sound like Nazis to you?

Thank you for clarifying. I was about to edit the title, but this community rules require to stick to the article titles, even though potentially misleading.