Because of the gross disparity in casualties between the two sides, attempting to minimise perceptions of the conflict as a whole (with a frame of reference chosen for statistical convenience) amounts proportionally to discounting the importance of the (overwhelmingly Palestinian) deaths.
This attitude of "it's bad but we can live with it" is directly reflected in the policies of the current Israeli government with respect to peace.
So, far from being a 'useless statistic', the relative hardships and pressures faced by each side have a direct bearing on the longevity of the conflict.
BTW, it's not necessary to speculate about how little I know. Let's stick to the facts.
[1] http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/1114/Is-Ham... [as-responsible-for-Gaza-rocket-fire-Not-exactly]
In other words, behaving like a government, which they supposedly are?
I do think, though, that you really must take into account, when measuring the intensity of the conflict, its entire history. After all, the violence didn't start when the occupation began, and, sadly, it's not likely to end when the Palestinians finally get an independent state (as I hope they would). But let's not turn this into an endless political argument. This isn't the Daily Beast.
(Of course, the Israeli-Arab conflict doesn't encapsulate the 'entire history' of the Jewish/Palestinian-Arab conflict either, some of whose bloodiest events happened before 1948. But that doesn't alter its magnitude.)