No, it means I believe we need to keep fighting terrorism and not target the civilians

That’s the official and hasbara rhetoric too, it is vastly different from what we have seen in practice. “Trying harder” is rather flimsy as an undertaking and excuse in Israel’s war of (T)Error that doesn’t cut it. “Fighting terror” becomes a catch-all term that effectively kills people indiscriminately, over half of them civilians, rather than non-violent and good-faith negotiations.

Since most Palestinians see all of Israel as an occupation

What evidence and figures have you got to back up this baseless assertion, romantic songs notwithstanding? Most of the Palestinian leadership and Arab states have repeatedly said they’ll recognise 1967 borders, that’s the West Bank and Gaza as Palestine, and yet Israel keeps building illegal settlements in the West Bank and the wall that further takes Palestinian land. These undertakings are stated policy and are agreed to by all or most Arab states, which means it will be backed up regionally. Israel, already armed to the teeth, can claim little fear that ending the occupation will result in Palestinians wanting all of Israel, and in any case this can not be used as an excuse to continue this brutal occupation.

Again, Israeli intransigence is most at fault (I never said ‘evil’, by the way, and featuring Israeli voices of conscience ensures I do not demonise Israelis whilst holding their government responsible, as it should be).

Israelis are worried that ending the occupation in the West Bank would only bring more of Israel into missile range.

See above, moreover, this is where and why not acting unilaterally and having track two talks achieves security for both parties. Yet Israel’s policies serve to do exactly the opposite.

Fighting the occupation can be done through non-violent means yes, but the right to military defence can not be denied to Palestinians either. To repeat, the Qassam rockets are in reaction to the military occupation and daily Israeli attacks that happen every day, not simply the bigger ones that make the news. The murderous effects of the occupation kill and hurt civilians daily, it is low intensity warfare that need not fall into the category of an airstrike to constitute an attack.

even the policies I disagree with are not intended to kill innocent people.

Many analysts disagree with you and have furnished ample evidence to the contrary (featured elsewhere here and pointed to several times now), which you to date have not.

No, it means I believe we need to keep fighting terrorism and not target the civilians, but it is very hard to seperate between combatants and non-combatants. We should try harder to make sure civilian casualties are as minimal as possible.

Ending the military occupation would remove the motivation for the rockets,

Since most Palestinians see all of Israel as an occupation, Israelis are worried that ending the occupation in the West Bank would only bring more of Israel into missile range. It is a legitimate concern.

This view also is myopic because it implicitly sees primary causality as the rockets — which I do not condone — but they in turn are a response to the daily attacks by Israel and the ongoing occupation

The rockets and Israeli strikes are a cycle, like the chicken or the egg. It isn’t as simple as you put it. Sometimes Qassams are a response to Israeli actions, sometimes they aren’t. There have been many rocket attacks that were not prompted by any particular Israeli attack.

As for fighting the occupation – the only way to end it is through negotiations, not violence, especially not violence aimed at civilians.

I’m not a representative of Israel here. I don’t agree with every policy. The use of too many checkpoints is one of them. But even the policies I disagree with are not intended to kill innocent people. We’re not the Evil Ones you present us as being.

This view also is myopic because it implicitly sees primary causality as the rockets — which I do not condone — but they in turn are a response to the daily attacks by Israel, its assassinations of Palestinian leaders and the ongoing occupation, from which Palestinians also have every right to defend themselves against Israeli strangulation and terror.

Ending the military occupation would remove the motivation for the rockets, which astute analysts such as veteran Avnery in any case argue convincingly are a pretext and that Israeli policy would not be substantially different even without them.

not because Israel wants to kill non-combatant Palestinians

As Michael illustrates so well, the terrible internal logic of military occupation is such that Israeli policy is in effect serving to kill innocent civilians with intent, be it through air strikes, indiscriminate attacks, denial of movement of the infirm of any age past checkpoints, denial of medicines, electricity and food, and it goes on.

See also Ilan Pappe in a recent ei piece, The mega prison of Palestine