The whole question of when this whole thing started turns into a rapid shit-show of historical backbiting. Depends which century you want to start from. Everyone can pick an arbitrary start point to suit their narrative; in my case I picked October 7th, not because it was the start point of the conflict, but it was the start of the current casus belli and the beginning of this phase of the conflict. The actions of Hamas (whether justified or not) put an end to the Abraham Accords and put pay to significant inroads the US and Saudi administrations were making on behalf of Palestinians. That was in the rest of the article, you just didn't read it. Hamas may be a product of the Israeli yoke, but that doesn't mean they're good for the Palestinian people. I'd go as far as to say any group part funded by Netanyahu as a destabilising force for Palestine isn't likely to be good for the Palestinian people.

As for the latter argument. When we start quibbling over the identity of people killed we've bought into the same sort of mentality as a totalitarian regime. When we're debating the type of people being murdered and whether or not that makes it better or worse, we've defaulted into fuckwit barbarism. The murder of civilians is the murder of civilians, it's happening on both sides and it needs to be called out as war a crime and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

I say that in the piece too - but you have to read it instead of doing impressive backflips to stay in an echo chamber. ;o)