. . . I do have a small difference with the characterization of the threat to the Palestinians.
You mentioned "the frequency of threats to destroy Israel by some of the Islamic extremists from that region of the world" and concluded that, "we see why, at least in their own minds, the current leaders of Israel engage in the often brutal behaviors that we see too often."
I'm sure this is just an unintended oversight on your part, but we can also take into account the U.S. and other world powers who align themselves with military actions against 'threats' they perceive from Islamic nations from that region which have served to inflame and deepen whatever resentments that may buttress violent expressions of self-determination or violent defenses of territorial integrity.
I would note that many of those offensives staged by our own nation have been revealed to be about much less noble pursuits than defense against extremists; many of those offensive military actions in that region made in clear defense of self-serving economic priorities like cheap oil.
In all of that we can properly view the actions of some in these Islamic states in the same vein as we consider Israel's own need to defend themselves against unjust and unwarranted attack.
I made the point to a poster earlier that the Palestinians in Gaza (as well as the Israelis) comprise more than one faction, but are actually several different constituencies. I agree that both of their peoples suffer from the lack of a non-violent representation in their governments.
I think the difference in this conflict is that you have an occupied people and an occupier which isn't as discriminate in their defenses as some might expect them to be; as international law, perhaps, expects.
Occupied people will always resist that occupation, often at the expense of their own lives. Recognizing that reality is as much in the interest of Israel as it is an imperative for Palestinians.
= new reply since forum marked as read
