the thing about unorganized collective action like this is that it doesn't control for what people's perspectives actually are, and it consequently doesn't really present a coherent argument. everybody is there for a different reason, has a different end, etc. this has sometimes been presented as an asset, in terms of getting people together. and that's a debate if you're looking to start a revolution, but a little less of one if you're protesting a war.

norman finkelstein knows what he's talking about; we all know that. but, the statements coming from the other activists merely demonstrate ignorance. the palestinian side may be morally more correct, but it's essentially by accident if you're not actually aware of the facts on the ground.

the idea that israel would stop the bombing if hamas would stop the rockets is just absurd israeli propaganda, and quickly disassembled; i won't bother. but, it's really no less ignorant to argue that hamas is a democratic party. they're a brutal, authoritarian regime. you ask around gaza, and they'll tell you they fear hamas as much as they fear israel. they routinely carry out public executions in the streets.

so, how do you expect the career bureaucrats in the civil service to react, when all they hear from the streets is various different types of ignorance? you expect them to just say "they don't know what they're talking about".

individual martyrdom is clearly pointless. but collective action isn't much more than that if there's nothing tying it together; in that case, it's not really collective action - it's a lot of individual martyrs sacrificing themselves together.