Mr Cosgrove's comments were made on October 13, 6 days after the Hamas attack. Israel announced its blockade on October 9. While technically true that they came around the same time, it might be a challenge to argue he was referring to that specifically.

Without additional context that clarifies his statements, it's likely his tweet could be interpreted as supporting Hamas by suggesting that any response was an unjustified war crime.

This raises the important point that allegations of war crimes are significant and it's critical to follow due process, and evidence in their investigation. Attempting to side step such legal principles could lead to the terms being abused as a pretext to try to justify further killings.

Crucially, using the terms in a casual context or without specific clarifications, could be read as an attempt to delegitimize any actions taken by those targeted with such accusations. It could even be seen as part of a larger information warfare or asymmetric campaign waged by an opponent to depict its own acts as justified, through the portrayal of its victims as war criminals deserving of punishment.

Yet such abuse of the terms to justify killing would only pervert the justice that's intended to be served by the notions of war crimes, and likely contribute to escalating cycles of violence that would be wise to avoid.

You raise a compelling point about the use of such narrative techniques to silence legitimate critique of the Israeli government. However, your comment might be interpreted as an attempt to do the same by utilizing the term war crimes to portray the Israeli government as war criminals deserving of retribution, which could be seen as an attempt to justify Hamas' actions.

Therefore, it's crucial to emphasize evidence, legal process and impartial investigation before using terms that could serve as a justification for killings.