I am aware that incomplete characterizations form a core part of provocative but not outright-false speech.

So I know that I cannot actually know what Yoav means from reading that alone. And you can't know either, not from just reading that. If you claim to be taking a plain interpretation, you're just announcing that you're coming in with the wrong mindset to understand what he means given that he already told you that the rules of provocation apply. You might get lucky and that might have its plainest meaning, but you might not, and you've had fair warning.

That's you being lazy or disingenuous, not me, if either of us is.

Now, if you wanted to object to how it sounds, then you don't need to go any deeper. I think provocation is rather irresponsible in areas which are already far too hot. No issue is hotter than this one right now. So I do fault him for how it sounds. But you didn't object to how it sounds but rather what Yoav meant.

"Smearing pro-Palestinian protesters as "pro-Hamas" is a neat little rhetorical trick because it allows you to depict Palestinian civilians as consenting collaborators in their own brutalization" you say (emphasis mine, to indicate that you were relying on meaning).

Can you point to where he's doing such a depiction in the article? (Hint: no, you can't, because he didn't write any such thing.)

Indeed, he wrote, and you therefore claimed you read, the following: "The purposeful dissemination of lies by Pro Palestinian hypocrites causes material damage to all sides. It breeds more hatred against Jews — Jews who have nothing to do with this conflict. It does not do anything to support Palestinian civilians." (Emphasis his.)

This isn't the kind of argument you make when you're trying to say the Palestinians are complicit in their own brutalization. Here he is clearly implying that there are Palestinians who deserve the usual considerations reserved for civilians.

In other articles he's said, "A recent poll from Harvard Harris found that almost 50% of Americans aged 18–24 support Hamas. Yes, you read that correctly. Not “support Palestinians” or “support a 2-state solution”. Straight up support Hamas [...] I fear young adults in the US have been woefully indoctrinated, to the point where they are unable to objectively assess anything anymore."

This indicates that he does, in fact, draw a very clear distinction between being pro-Palestinian and pro-Hamas and is distressed by how many others seem to be not drawing the distinction.

And, "Israel has never been a perfect country. The treatment of Arab Israelis over the decades has been horrible. And yes, the Nakba happened [...] But [these examples of anti-Jewish rhetoric were] never about Israeli policy. And let’s be honest, it probably isn’t about Palestinian civilians either; otherwise you would been trying to free Palestine from Hamas over the last two decades."

If you add all that in as context, the most apparent interpretation of statements like "Pro Palestinian (aka Pro Hamas)" is that the de facto attitude of pro-Palestinian protests is pro-Hamas, not because to be pro-Palestinian is necessarily to be pro-Hamas as if there is no distinction, but because the pro-Hamas side has left so little air between the two that in practice pro-Palestinian protests end up also being pro-Hamas (or anti-Jewish).

This is quite inconsistent with your charge that the point is to dehumanize or remove sympathy for Palestinian civilians because they're complicit.