So another solution to the problem is to tip the balance of public opinion, to overcome the notion that only scoundrels kill the weak. Sometimes the weak deserve to die.
While his conclusion may rely on perception, I think he’s correct that there is an inherent bias (at least in Judeo-Christian nations) which mitigates against the use of overwhelming force against a “weaker” foe.
IMO, Israel should mobilize, establish defensible borders deep within the West Bank, and build their wall. Or reoccupy the territories and reestablish a military government, and get on with the decades long process of building a civilized society. “Public opinion” aside, I think the author would suggest that Israel herself cannot generate the will to use this level of overwhelming force against an “unequal” enemy.
Equality you should view in terms of the threat, not hardware. If the Palestinians approach a point where they are perceived as threatening Israel’s existence, they will be “equal” and force will be unleashed. Personally, while they are winning now I think they’ll overplay their hand, the author doesn’t.
I think you can view our refusal to decisively cut the Ho Chi Minh trail on the ground, or invade the north, or complete our defeat of Sadaam in the Gulf War in this perspective, American unwillingness to use overwhelming force on an “unequal”, in terms of threat, foe.
I think this is a factor in what seem to me to be an anemic attempt to root out the sources of terror worldwide. As 9/11 fades, the threat diminishes, and our will erodes. I’d prefer to see us to begin taking action now, without another attack elevating our enemies to our level.
I don't think the problem is public opinion, it's a sense of fairness embedded within our society.