It's said that if you oppress a people, it's inevitable they will fight back.
It's further suggested - although this normative claim cannot be directly derived from such an empirical claim - that that makes the perpetrators of the oppression ultimately responsible for any harms caused by the oppressed's actions.
But let's be consistent with that logic. And understand that it's not oppression per se that causes people to react but perceived bad treatment. Oppression is just a label attached to certain kinds of bad treatment. So people are going to respond aggressively to bad treatment, whether or not we'd socially construct that treatment as oppression.
Then we can also say it's inevitable that people will respond to terrorism. It's not a separate logic; it's the same logic. And if we make the connection between empirical expectation and moral responsibility in the one case, why should we not make it in the other case? In each case the perpetrators presumably know how the other side will respond and the consequences - the human suffering - that will result.
There is always SOMETHING you can point at as bad behavior. Nothing justifies intentionally slaughtering infants. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. So the only question to ask then is whether or not those actions were justified. While for any given action/reaction it can be somewhat a matter of opinion, anyone justifying the intentional slaughter of infants has probably crossed past the point of reasonable conversation or negotiation.
I know that you can point to various actions by Israel that have negative consequences for Palestinians. On the other hand, I'm not sure what choice they have. They live next to a population that wants to see Israel eradicated or at least tolerate and support groups that do.
Palestine has repeatedly rejected a two-state solution going back to 1947 and every time they and their allies attack Israel, they lose more land. Where does Israel go from here to make the situation better without inviting their own destruction? Palestine could hand out a list of demands, Israel could agree to every one, and I still do not believe that would be the end of Palestinian groups attacking Israel (unless of course one of the agreed upon terms was to turn in the keys to the kingdom and go somewhere else). Would doing nothing in response to being attacked lead to better results? I am not convinced of that.