As usual, taking only portions of an article tells only PART of the story. The IDF didn't just flip a coin and decide to 'invade' a particular location on a whim, as the OP duplicitously suggests.
And while tear gas isn't pleasant - it is not specifically lethal, as the rockets INDISCRIMINATELY launched into Israel from Gaza, for example.
As for the tear gas being manufactured in the US, SO WHAT????? Lots of nations make the stuff - and use it on their very own civilians. (If some fool had brought a month-old baby to some of the 'anti-war' marches in the US, there could have been a similar injury then.)
But I expect almost any occasion can be turned to 'let's demonize Israel' by those who wish to promote such hatred. And it also gives them the chance to spit venom about 'Zionists' and 'pro-Israelis'.
We all have choices to make, and investing endless hours in distorting already biased 'reports' in order to vilify and demonize whole populations is just one I wouldn't make..... It's not 'confronting injustice': it's perpetrating injustice.
I agree - so what where it's manufactured. That's a pretty stupid add-on for the OP as well as trying to make it about war crimes - tear gas is commonly used in civilian settings.
But how is this any different than the using Israeli children, injured in stone throwing incidents to demonize Palestinians and promote hatred?
I agree with what I think your sentiment is here - that the OP is using this incident to demonize, but there is also a badly injured child, who was injured because tear gas was fired at their home. He had no choice. His parents probably had no choice. Where injured Israeli toddlers receive kind words, does this baby simply get blame and vitriole?