Just getting caught up here:
...
None of the incidents you've cited were direct and continuous attacks by a single, organized group against civilian targets in United States territories. All of the cited incidents were against military targets except for KAL, and KAL ultimately led to political changes in the USSR which, longer term, ultimately led to its collapse. KAL was also not an attack against a US civilian target, but rather a primarily Korean one.
Apples to oranges, in other words. Notably, the one attack by a listed terrorist organization that denies the right of the United States to even exist against civilians in American territory led to the invasion of two countries and one of the largest military operations since the Vietnam War. I'll note that, which is directly comparable, is excluded from your examples.
Acceptable enough, I'll focus on other points.
...
Ah, so the pIRA was justified in civilian bombings in Northern Ireland and England because they had no ability to exter political pressure in any other real manner, and no good guarantees of disarmament?
Sorry, but this is a non-argument. Power imbalances do not justify the attempted mass murder of civilians if you can't get your way through diplomacy. This isn't some noble engagement of Hamas attacking Israeli military and government targets; this is hamas launching concerted and heavy rocket fire at civilian population centers intentionally.
Please explain what other means they have. The only argument offered so far as been "if you are peaceful, everything would be fine", which is still unlikely considering that Israel can't even play nice with the West Bank. Overall, The sad reality that the peace process has been utterly stalled until now, to the point where a number of US administrations since Clinton have implied or outright asserted that Israel is slowing down the peace process.
You can say both sides have this issue of taking things on faith, but the difference is that if Israel was attacked in an overt fashion (i.e. the scenario painted that if not for the blockade, Palestinian forces could stream across the border into Israel, or the idea that an Israel that didn't power project would invite a massive attack by nearby Arab nations), not only can Israel expect some level of international assistance, they also arguably nowadays have such a powerful Military and Intelligence agency that they could win an extended fight like that. Iran is probably the only nation in the area that poses any threat to Israel, and Iran becoming involved would damn near guarantee the US would become involved militarily, and Iran is likely aware of this. Contrast that to the idea of Gaza taking things on faith and going completely disarmed. They'd be completely at the mercy of Israel, and the shaky hope that the only defense they'd have left would be the international community might help in time, something that seems less and less likely considering how little the international community has been willing to become involved in Syria or Ukraine.
In a scenario where Gaza posed no violent threat to Israel, international opinion and pressure would be overwhelmingly against Israel's treatment of the Gaza strip. They are, at this juncture, their own worst enemy. And again, the idea that only violence allows them to be heard or stand up against Israel is not only factually incorrect (as it worsens the situation; the blockade is only justified by arms intercepts), it's reprehensible from a human rights perspective as well.
Gaza has none of that, and no reason to trust the idea of "don't make any trouble and you'll be fine". Settlements continue to be made in the West Bank. The blockade is unlikely to be lifted without significant time spent without any shred of violence towards Israel (something, I imagine, that would be hard to Hamas to guarantee even if they agreed to it). I say that they're the ones facing a threat to existence because, given what we've see with Syria and Ukraine, Israel could very well annex the territory entirely, and the international community would issue a "stern condemnation" and nothing more.
Gaza and the West bank are different. Israel destroyed its settlements and withdrew entirely from Gaza before Hamas ever came to power. Israel has made concerted steps to disentangle itself from Gaza entirely; they want the territory, its people, and the inevitable headache that entails even less than they metaphorically want another hole in their head. If Israel had wanted to annex the Gaza strip, they would have unilaterally done so long since. The existential threat Gaza faces originates in the fact that they continue to target Israeli civilians. So long as that happens, the blockade will never be lifted and Gaza has no economic chances whatsoever.
Just going to go with the rest of this at once:
The West Bank is linked to Gaza in that any competing political forces to Hamas in Gaza look to that as an example of what peaceful negotiations can bring, and while life is better than it is in Gaza, you still have what is a pretty unacceptable situation for the Palestinians. Settlements are still being built (violation of GCIV, which Israel is a signatory to), the PNA is no closer to peace than it was a decade ago, and there's still repeated accusations of human rights violations by the Israelis in the West Bank.
Israel has not backpedaled on much of anything related to the peace process or international law violations despite repeated criticism from the UN and international community in general. I really can't see international pressure being much of a threat. Even in the present situation, the international pressure is so lukewarm that Israel feels fine continuing.
I get that the situation is complicated, targeting civilians is bad, Hamas is bad, and hell, the PNA even is pretty bad (more than some of the human rights violations in the West Bank are carried out by the local government). The thing what really most "pro-Palestinian" voices in this discussion are saying is that Israel is also pretty bad, and the only thing this current operation is likely to accomplish is killing a lot of people in Gaza.
Its unfair to have to negotiate with terrorists, but considering that Hamas still holds Gaza despite how bad it is to live in Gaza, you either have to negotiate, invite 3rd party forces in, or be willing to accept increasing the suffering much much more, before anything meaningful can happen. Israel is being told to withdraw because citizens are *informed* : the most they can do is setback the efforts against them in Gaza, and the loss of life and political enmity this is creating far outweighs those benefits.
In short : If there was a playbook for "take out hostile terrorist forces without killing a ton of civilians", the last 40 some years of history for many countries would have gone differently.
