I rather think its more likely that the people in this thread are operating with very different perceptions of the conflict, rather than there being some kind of deep seated moral flaw or "disgusting" view held. And I know to the zealot such a statement will appear to them as if I too share a horrific moral abscess - but hey, I'm putting it out there!
Everyone here thinks their opinions are reasonable, and if we met face to face over a beer we might have more empathy for each other.
In any event, the outrage competition over what the other person is posting is boring, and doesn't get us anywhere.
To get to what else this latest back and forth triggered in my mind: I think its clear both sides have been locked into a repetition of the same strategy. The Palestinians with their various asymmetric methods and the Israelis with their periodic "crushing" of resistance against a backdrop of grinding, decades long attrition.
Neither side is "forced" to choose to repeat the same failed strategy, but - as mentioned in the post I wrote on page 2 - both sides are incentivized to act the way they do. Israeli hawks think that with the material, military and political advantages they enjoy that they can outlast the Palestinians and win a war of attrition. Maybe attrition is also the safest political option, with little risk of upsetting the political cart at home. The demographic threat looms however, and given the modicum of restraint exercised upon them by the highly-visible and propagandistic nature of this conflict they can't really pull a Putin and go the "medieval" styles necessary to truly crush the Palestinians and bend them finally to their will. So the question is how long Israel can keep it up before other pressures come to bear: I fear they can keep it up quite a bit longer...
The Palestinians don't have to choose terror tactics, like the Israelis they are not "forced" to do what they do - but the fundamental power imbalance means traditional armed conflict is doomed to failure (explained more deeply on page 2). The history of the conflict also shows that leaders in Palestine have, as their Israeli counterparts have as well, often found escalations in conflict a handy way to sideline competitors and shore up political support to retain their power. There is also a host of regional players and people across the middle east that are encouraging the Palestinians to take action that justifies the dollars and weapons and moral support given to them. This can manifest in terror attacks.
The two biggest factors fueling the Palestinians have nothing to do with some implacable evil or hatred. They are the fundamental and complete imbalance in relative power and the weapons and support flowing to the Palestinians to keep them well above the point where Israeli actions could ever break them.
History has shown that civil wars where no one cares about the outcome end quickly - the powerful side does what it needs to do to crush the resistance, and some degree of stability is won quickly. Civil wars where outside parties can fuel and sustain the opposing sides can endure for decades, with horrifying consequences and threats to stability that could very easily mushroom into regional wars. That outside support can be drawn in during a particularly crazy escalation and turn civil war into a greater war.
