controversial articles and neutrality problems

I agree with everything you have said (including your criticism of my use of the phrase POV warrior - I was wrong) right up to your final sentence:

...these two problems, which, I believe, have a profound impact on the quality and reliability 
of Wikipedia's coverage of disputed topics.

If articles on controversial matters are longer, better researched and more carefully reviewed than articles on less controversial matters then this does "have a profound impact on the quality and reliability of Wikipedia's coverage" but the impact is entirely positive and should be welcomed and celebrated.

If "imbalance" between articles is a problem it is not a big one in the scheme of things and has minimal effect on readers provided the treatment in each article is balanced - which it generally is.

We should

• formally thank the tireless editors who have worked so long and hard to arrive at a fair presentation of the facts in these Palestine and Israel related articles
• congratulate them on the level of success they have achieved so far
• encourage them to continue to engage together to resolve the remaining outstanding issues and the other issues that are likely to arise in the future
• hope they will continue working to improve the articles.

These articles may never be perfect or even feature quality but they are already good and useful and I suspect they are already among the best articles on these subjects anywhere. Read the Muhammad al-Durrah article for an example. Any attempt to "solve this problem" is, in my opinion, far more likely to make it worse.