If the question is "are they legitimate targets," that's not easy to answer. One could argue that merely occupying stolen land is an act of war, but others might not agree. Even so, I feel this question fails to get at the core of how the resistance should conduct itself. Dividing colonizers into "military targets" vs. "innocent civilians" is counterproductive, since each has their role to play in colonialism. No one has their hands clean. That isn't to say violence can be wrought against the colonizers indiscriminately, however. It's important to keep certain objectives in mind any time one engages in violent resistance.

Violence, even against noncombatants, can be used as a means of liberation. Hamas captures "civilians" with the intent of freeing their own people. "We will capture more until the jails are emptied." We have already seen this strategy bear fruit. It's also important to remember that such violence is not retributive, but conducted with the goals of decolonization and emancipation in mind and with a clear idea of how capturing or otherwise targeting "civilians" will achieve these ends. Hamas understands this.

I think people get caught up in ideas of "just deserts" when it comes to anticolonial resistance, when in reality it has nothing to do with who deserves what, but by what method colonialism can be brought to its knees. Targeting civilians can absolutely achieve this, as we have seen. Israel is no longer safe for settlers, and that is more important than the idealism of a perfectly morally defensible revolution.