Terrorists or friendly happy strangers?

I just watched a very powerful documentary about Palestinian children called "Death in Gaza". I was extremely moved by the harsh realities faced by children, innocent children, swept into a sad conflict. You can see how the Israeli army bulldozing Palestinian houses, leaving many innocent people homeless, could cause the fervor of martyrdom that is so prevalent in the occupied territories. I know it isn't a one-sided issue by any means, but one gets a sense that the perceived "terrorism" is a direct reaction from instability in one's life, turmoil, and general misery; the only escape comes from this notion of martyrdom, which takes on almost like a gross sect, a branch, of Islam. Israeli terror breeds Palestinian terror, and likewise.

After having read the Bush Administration's roadmap to peace last summer (I agreed with many of the notions within it but not with the timetable), I felt like a two-state solution had a plausible ending. I was deeply saddened to see that after key initiatives had come to deadline that the administration seemed to give up completely on the plan, which made me think it was all for a glossy show.

Shouldn't we aknowledge the misery shared by both sides, take on the position that peace stems from non-violence, and work on a policy that benefits a two-state solution? Why aren't we sticking with it? Terrorism seems to breed from the feeling that one's people are getting the shaft. Why don't we see this when thinking of "crushing" a force like al-Qaeda?

My point: We cannot simply snub terrorists; that is not destroying terror at its source. Paradoxically, to destroy terror, we have to help bolster those who look to fundamentalism as the answer to their hopelessly desperate situation. We have to snub their desperation and provide them with hope and opportunity. Yes, I know - easier said than done. It's a hell of a lot harder to wage war on the causes of terrorism and fundamentalism rather than simply on those who commit it. But as long as we wage war on the tactic and not the reason why the tactic is used, the war on terror as we know it will never come to an end. It is just another cold war.

I also realize the answer to this predicament isn't as simple as this, but to me it seems a hell of a lot better than the stunted ethics of the current administration towards terrorism (to be fair, I haven't seen a lot of Democrat politicians come up with any more of an enlightened answer).