I think trying to apply 'context' to an horrific act is always a way of excusing the actions. Yes, there is context but on October 7th, to be blunt, they could have just come and killed people, they didn't have to torture them so horrendously. The parading tortured women through the streets to be spat on crosses a definite line and is a message about what Hamas stand for.
There is 'context' for why Israel exists and when people apply 'context' to Oct 7th they almost always ignore that 'context' of 6 million Jews dead in the Holocaust and many Jews made homeless - refugees - from other countries as well as centuries of antisemitic persecution. Or even the previous attacks on Israel. Some of the land grabs were in response to being attacked and needing strategic defence positions and yes, some of it is unjustifiable land grabs.
There is a reasonably convincing narrative (which to be clear I don't know whether it's true or not) that the Oct 7th attacks were more about strategic power alliances in the region and blocking the Saudi / Israeli deal than about fighting for the Palestinian people. I.e. both Palestinian and Israeli civilians are acceptable collateral damage in a pissing contest over which country will be dominant in the region.
At the same time as arguing we should accept refugees in this country those who unilaterally support Palestine fail to recognise that Israel is a state of refugees which had the blessing - when it was set up - of the international community. If Israel were to be destroyed by Hamas, where would these people go? Or do they all have to be killed? Is that what people are arguing for when they argue that Israel should not be where it is?
Of course there is also the 'context' that those most powerful in the international community did not set up the state of Israel in their own backyard (I know there are historical reasons for this, but still).
Anyway, women on both sides lose while men argue and hold the power.