What I generally got from their policy is that, while it qualifies objectively as terrorism, they do not decide that internally. They communicate the label as assigned by governments and other authorities. It’s a very reasoned policy as journalists can quickly become editorialists if they start inserting their own conclusions.

I don’t think the opinion that the Hamas attack was an act of terror has been obfuscated at all.

As well, I don’t think there’s any argument that the Hamas attack on Israel could be anything other than a terrorist attack (without attribution) because they targeted civilians with the specific intent to kidnap.

However, since Israel as a nation is condoning the military action I don’t think it could strictly be said it’s terrorism.

And now you’ve identified why journalists choose not to make that distinction. You are obviously free to make whatever distinction you want.

Personally I feel the situation over the past 100+ years in Palestine has been so fucked up, there’s no simple black and white “good buy retaliating” and “bad guy doing the terrorism”.

Surely there are objective examples that require no attribution though. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center is a good example

The author addressed that specific incident in his message.

Their policy is to only use the word “terrorist/terrorism” when quoting someone.

Just like other serious journalism outlets do.