Its violence for a political outcome, so it probably fits the definition. The broad definition of terrorism makes it easy to apply to all kinds of circumstances. Add to that the general perception of terrorism being an extreme act and something only 'bad people' do. And it suddenly feels a bit over the top in this case, but is probably appropriate.

Alternatively, maybe there are legal and certainly moral arguments for the active defence of a group being murdered and terrorised supported by the actions of the company in question. There are undoubtedly moral arguments, not sure if there are legal arguments for that. I'd not excpect there to be.

From a police and authorities perspective I suppose the use of the word 'terrorism', release of footage, and stated extent of resources committed is likely part of a strategy to create a chilling effect around this act in order to deter further escalations.

I can only hope they investigate and strategise around Australians who serve in the IDF with an equal display of intent and rigour...