(1) Person X is targeted -> (2) innocent people don't get targeted -> (3) therefore person X must not be innocent
The problem is that (2) contains too many bad assumptions: that the person doing the targeting is benevolent, that there's sufficient due process to ensure the targeter is correct, that there's a universally agreed definition of "innocent", etc.
History has proven that innocent people DO get targeted, so even from a common sense perspective your statement doesn't withstand scrutiny.
Targeted -> this will be a specifically identified person
Assassination -> they will be killed
For example, a dictator might perform a targeted assassination on a rival, in order to stay in power. Innocence or non-innocence has nothing to do with it. Or to give a more relevant example, someone might target and kill a Palestinian so that settlers can take their land. Whether the Palestinian was innocent or not doesn't matter. The land was the objective.
This is the term in Hebrew, as it appears on Wikipedia: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%9C...
I will leave it to you to translate the first paragraph and see what it means in the Israeli, Hebrew context.