The historic pattern of foreign aid distribution is telling. In Latin America the US gave aid to regimes which were favorable to our business. When these were replaced by popular democratic (or from our point of view, socialist and destabilizing) ones, aid stopped. When these were overthrown by millitary dictators that resumed favorable business conditions, aid flowed once again.
The correlation between aid and democracy is coincidental. When we don't like a regime because it's unfriendly to our business, we stop aid AND accuse the regime of being undemocratic, abusive of human rights, etc. We accuse a country of being 'bad' for the same reason that we withold aid. The two stem from the same thing, rather than a country being 'bad' leading to financial repercussions. We've aided plenty of regimes that were tyranical to their own people, as long as they opened up their natural resources and labour to our business.
possible that the Israelis aren't seeking vengeance, in the same way that the Palestinians are. What they want is to live in peace, and they don't see killing all the Palestinians are a pre-requesite. Peace can come in many ways - on the nice end of the scale it can come from negotiations, where the Palestinians will agree (and actually stick to it) to stop blowing up Israelis. It isn't likely to happen. On the ugly side of the scale, it can come when Israel truly indiscriminantly murders Palestinians the way the King of Jordan did back in the day. For every attack, wipe out a town or a refugee camp. That way the Palestinians will either be too afraid to attack again (that worked for Jordan) or there simply won't be any Palestinians left to cause trouble after a while. But Israel won't bring itself to that extreme in order to obtain security. So they are left trying to do something in between. They attack targets which they feel will help them gain security. If they feel that, for example, killing a terrorist leader will save a 100 Israeli lives, they go ahead and kill him.
So I don't think Israel is about vengeance. The writeup doesn't mention it, but the article does: "Yesterday diplomats said they suspected the attack — which killed 14 Palestinians as well as the Hamas commander Sheikh Salah Shehada..
" They didn't bomb the building to kill civilians, they did it to get the Hamas leader. And though it hurts Israel's public image, there's clearly more motivation to do that than just "vengeance."
There was a voice in the Muslim world that thought GW Bush was out to kill 4 thousand Afghans. Because they thought the US invaded Afghanistan to exact revenge for the people killed in WTC. But the US is more pragmatic in its goals than simple tit-for-tat. So, I believe, is Israel.