No, they would not!
Also, I am perfectly aware of (and: I have posted about him on here before - under this very user name - feel free to go and research!) and frankly horrified by Ben Gvir, specifically (and a few more of his ilk)!
But, that does nothing to what I intended to say at all - on the contrary: my overall point was "look, we can go ahead and disagree with each other over [oh, but: I give no credence to X on who bombed the hospital" vs. "and I cannot accept that Y people died on the grounds of who counts the dead" all day long!
We call it "fog of war" for a reason. The cliche that truth is the first casualty of war is a cliche for a reason.
Very often, pertaining to details: ACTUALLY, we just do not know. Yet. Eventually, someone will write their PhD on it and will be celebrated for the groundbreaking work they did - but that will be years from now!
That is not, however, to say that we should not take a stance, right here, and right now - just that it ought to be grounded, probably, more in "general trends, allowing for uncertainty" than in "oh but [supposed fact]." And that, in order to achieve this, while also trying to keep a genuinely open mind, quite some effort and willingness to be challenged is required!