Were the October 7 attackers conflating innocent unarmed festival goers with the state of Israel?
After the 1967 war, Israel criminalised normal civil actions by Palestinians. Actions that you and I take for normal day to day life,
Two months after Israel occupied Palestinian and Arab territories in the 1967 war, its government issued Military Order 101 which essentially criminalised civic activities under the basis of “hostile propaganda and prohibition of incitement”.
The order, which is still in use in the occupied West Bank, outlaws the participation and organisation of protests, printing and distributing political material, waving flags and other political symbols, and any activity that demonstrates sympathy for an organisation deemed illegal under military orders.
Three years later, another military order (378) was issued by the Israeli government. This established military courts, and basically outlawed all forms of Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation as “terrorism”.
Hundreds of other military orders have been issued and implemented since then to curtail any Palestinian civic and political expression.
Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, it is against international law for an occupying power to transfer an occupied people from the occupied territory.
There are 1,264 Palestinian administrative detainees, which means that they are held indefinitely behind bars without facing trial or any charges. This practice, a remnant of the British Mandate era, can be extended indefinitely based on “secret evidence”, meaning that a detainee can spend months if not years in prison without being charged.
Yet Israel does this on a normal basis, transferring prisoners out of the territory in which they were arrested and which their family lives.
Israel has been persistently breaking international law since 1967.
The purpose of the 7 October raid was to capture some Israelis as a bargaining for the release of some of the Palestinian unlawfully held prisoners for year, without charge, without trial, and held indefinitely, and against international law.
As you've said, yourself and no doubt so does filly, collateral damage , i.e. civilians are killed, during such actions.
The big difference is that Israel 'carelessly' even intentionally targets civilians and it has been doing so since 1967.
But you and filly brush it off as collateral damage.
When Israeli civilians are victims of collateral damage, you support and argue for genocidal collective retribution is launched against Palestinians, on top of the subjugation, starvation, destruction of infrastructure, and continued detention of prisoners.
You can't in all honesty argue that Palestinian resistance against their oppressors is unjustified when they have been targeted by their oppressors for nearly 60 years, and then argue that collective genocidal action against Palestinians by their Israeli oppressors is equally justified.