It doesn’t make the point outright, but the reports that 80%ish of the journalists were killed in their homes, many with their kids and families, could at least support the claim that Israel is “targeting” journalists.

It does no such thing.

And why is that?

What do you mean? The article you linked never claims 80% of journalists were killed in their homes, or anything near that number. Where did you get that number from?

I did not link the article. I was responding to the comment that stridently declared that the article provides no support for the claim that Israel is targeting journalists.

I got the number by actually fully reading the article, counting up the number of Palestinians who were listed as killed in their home or with their families (around 30) and then of the remaining, reading the provided linked reports that gave more detail as to how the journalists died (around 8). 38 died in their homes, 49 Palestinian journalists killed totally, hence around 80 percent. I may be off by a couple since here or there, but to say that the article “doesn’t mention anything near that number” is a stretch.

> 38 died in their homes, 49 Palestinian journalists killed totally, hence around 80 percent.

But the article only lists 18 of the journalists as killed in their homes, out of 50 killed in Gaza. That's 36%.

Even if we accept that "80% of the journalists were killed in their homes" at face value, that doesn't mean anything if 80% of overall casualties happened in their own homes.

And even if that number is substantially higher than average, sometimes these things happen by chance – numbers are funny like that. Or there may be some factor other than "being a journalist" that skews this figure.

It's a very strong claim. I don't expect air-tight evidence, but you really need something stronger than a very weak "surely it can't be a coincidence?!" like this.