When the leader of another country is on record calling for your genocide and actively pursuing weapon programs that can make that a reality—you might have slightly different standards on how far you might be willing to go for protection than other countries that do not have countries calling for their genocide.

Since WW2 the Jewish people tend to operate under the philosophy of “When someone tells you he wants to kill you, you should take them seriously” because the last leader of a country who decided to kill them and make an effort of it, managed to eliminate 2/3 of the jews that resided in Europe and about 40% of them worldwide.

I think that even though I am not Jewish, if I had that history and the current regional political climate…I probably wouldn’t bat an eye at a robot sniper since my moral standards would be shaped by a very real and very recent effort to wipe me off the earth. That could change a perspective and standard.

And I realize that Israel is not just Jews, but does anyone really believe that the phrase “Death to Israel” means “Death to the Arabs living there too”?

I don't see how that addresses the comment at all. You appear to be saying that Israel is correct for having different moral standards. That does not seem to address the conflict in the comment above

No, I am not saying that Israel is correct or not because the morality here is completely subjective. There is no correct and there is no incorrect.

Israel’s different moral standards are a reasonable human response for THEM because of the history of genocide attempted on the Jewish people and the present day threats of genocide that are still being made against them.

So in that sense, I believe they do have a probable similar moral standard as the average man on the street, because the average man on the street would likely take any step necessary and within their means to prevent a genocide from being committed against them, especially if an attempted genocide just recently happened to them.