Israel used Palantir technologies in pager attack in Lebanon

I don't think the analogy is apt. Members of Hezbollah do not occupy a positions of similar relationship to Lebanon as US generals does to the US. As far as I've heard, flag officers and others are escorted by personal security for an attack of any sort, such as the 2009 Ft Hood shooting. [0]

Moving past that, a civilian citizen of Venezuela in the US who performed actions against US military targets would not be a valid military strike since that person would not be an identifiable member or Venezuela's military. It would more akin to a spy or assassin. Below is an excerpt from an article representing a US-centric view of history [1].

  But the right to kill one’s enemy during war was not considered wholly 
  unregulated. During the 16th century, Balthazar Ayala agreed with Saint 
  Augustine’s contention that it “is indifferent from the standpoint of justice 
  whether trickery be used” in killing the enemy, but then distinguished 
  trickery from “fraud and snares” (The Law and Duties of War and Military 
  Discipline). Similarly, Alberico Gentili, writing in the next century, found 
  treachery “so contrary to the law of God and of Nature, that although I may 
  kill a man, I may not do so by treachery.” He warned that treacherous killing 
  would invite reprisal (Three Books on the Law of War). And Hugo Grotius 
  likewise explained that “a distinction must be made between assassins who 
  violate an express or tacit obligation of good faith, as subjects resorting 
  to violence against a king, vassals against a lord, soldiers against him whom 
  they serve, those also who have been received as suppliants or strangers or 
  deserters, against those who have received them; and such as are held by no 
  bond of good faith” (On the Law of War and Peace).
  

1. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/assassination-law-of-war/

Edit: /Hamas/Hezbollah/

We've massed forces for an attack, attacked their ships, violated their airspace with combat aircraft (that's today), and extensively and publicly threatened them. They'd be in their legal rights to strike preemptively, including possibly a decapitation strike (this is why the Dubya administration kept repeating the term "preemptive strike", even though it was obviously nowhere near applying in the case of Iraq—it was a way of asserting its legal basis)

[edit] As thereisnospork points out in a sibling comment, however, this doesn't mean it'd be a good idea.

It's an occupation that has been ongoing for almost 80 years, not a 'war' that began unprovoked, along with recorded history and the universe itself, on October 7th.

>Sometimes in perfectly legal and justified strikes, sometimes in attacks that contravene the laws of war.

More than half the time, these 'perfect justifications' don't hold water and in fact rest on the hope of total impunity from IHL.

>Hamas uses the civilians under their control as both a sword and a shield

Not according to any sane definition that is internationally agreed upon. Conversely, the IDF's use of human shields - as defined in IHL and in their own propaganda - is abundantly documented.

>Egypt simply refuses their obligation under IHL to allow refugees to flee, collateral damage is an unfortunate inevitability.

Rather odd that rendering Palestinians stateless is just a law of nature in your books, and that Israel's obligations as an occupying power and the agent that created a refugee crisis - ie, prosecuted a campaign of human cleansing - is not part of your calculus at all.

Instead what we have is IHL, i.e. the Geneva and Hague conventions etc., and if you are targeting military personnel or other targets of military importance, without any extra cruelty or attacks on civilians, what does it matter if it looks like terror-bombing?

If it's allowed by IHL but is terrorism by British or French of German law or whatever, it's allowed. IHL is the actual binding thing.