To save time, I'll provide a few tips to commenters:

1. When they can't argue with the facts of an article, they'll try to distract you with purity tests about what language people are allowed to use, or claim that a simple sentence invalidates all other arguments.

Don't read the article, they'll say, everything you ned to know is that somebody used the word Zionists to refer to Zionists.

2. Because they are utterly incapable of moral consistency, they'll make all kinds of assumptions that are untrue. Because they cannot imagine that somebody who criticises Israel could also criticise Hamas (and they're too stupid and bigoted to differentiate between Hamas and the innocent Palestinian people).

And, of course, they won't have done even the slightest bit of homework before spouting their nonsense, so they won't realise that they are, in fact, badly mistaken.

Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C.

3. Of course, once they've done this, they'll finish off with a little whataboutism, because they're too dense to realise that they're commenting on an article about THE ORIGINS of the Israel Palestine conflict. So while there is lots of valid criticism to be levelled at the methods some Palestinians have used in their resistance, the overriding point is that it is RESISTANCE. And the violence would never have happened without the inciting incident.

This is like claiming that the slaves deserved to be oppressed because of the violence Nat Turner committed during his brutal slave rebellion, failing to understand that the slave rebellion ONLY HAPPENED BECAUSE OF SLAVERY.

Thankfully, most people are capable of the rudimentary level of thinking, empathy, and intellectual integrity required to see through all of this.