VRWCagent, you (and others) should see the obvious:
If army X does not have the ability to only attack military targets, and it has the need to cause damage to any sort of target of its enemies, then it will have to choose less guarded targets.
It is obvious that if the arab militia could pose a similar threat to Israel if they were only choosing military targets, then they would do just that.
You are claiming that they should, nevertheless, not target anything else, because it is "immoral" etc, but in this way they would just break-up and become insignificant.
Granted, those militia groups have become more institutionalised than they should have been, but the reason was the Israeli violence against the Palestinian population.
It is beyond any reason to call them terrorists just due to their methods. They would have been even more suicidal if they were to only target israeli military, since chances are that then they would have a very low success rate in their campaigns.
Instead of blindly supporting the state of Israel, you should realise that it has failed utterly in providing a viable peace plan, the effects of which can be seen to this day.
I fear that the general false ideas about Israel (which have much to do with the primitive religiousness in the Usa btw) are what largely prevents a more constructive stance by the US government in the issue.
It is obvious that not all people in Israel are in favour of the current government's actions. Moreover the more sensible (and less religious) parts of the population are very tired of what they have to still face, and do not simplistically accuse the arabs for it.
Now, instead of sticking to unrealistic claims that the arab militias should not attack civilians (which is like claiming that a soldier armed with a rifle should choose to attack not a convoy of civilians, but a horde of tanks) you should have a closer look at the situation, so that you might in the future be more helpfull in resovling it as well.
