Recent Israeli actions and massacres

[Xugumad]

Originally posted by russotto

All that proves is that Israel doesn't believe in the tooth fairy.

You didn't actually provide any sources, arguments, evidence, or proof that this would clearly be how the Palestinians would act.

I argued that since the results of implementing UN Resolution 242 is what the vast majority of Palestinians want, and what the cause of their suicidal struggle is, they would become significantly less radical and less willing to sacrifice their homeland and lives again since they would have achieved their primary objective. The vast majority of Palestinians are only radicalized because they believe that Israel is unjustly occupying their homeland; the radicals would be marginalized if they regained what they believe is their. Sure, some would continue to fight for the removal of all Jews from the Middle East, but for most Palestinians this would be sufficient reason to - if necessary, violently - oppress those radical minorities as to not risk the greater achievement.

This not without precedent: the moderate Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland started attacking and often brutally oppressing the more radical and violent splinter groups and individuals in Northern Ireland in the late 1990s in order to prevent those radicals from risking the achievements of the IRA/Sinn Fein that have given them a lot of concessions (including the setting free of many convicted IRA members).

Or, to be very clear: the small radical splinter groups will be suppressed by the majority, if necessary by death. The majority will be silent and support the moderates, since risking the achievement (the reclaiming of the West Bank) would be a return to 35+ years of misery and desperation that led the Palestinian people to disaster after disaster.

That was my point. I believe I have reasoned it through fairly logically and provided backup from previous similar situations. Could you please point out flaws in the argument rather than invoking the tooth fairy, please?

It's a bad alternative, but it beats surrendering any day of the week. Certainly Israel has often fought in counterproductive ways, but to just hand over everything in exchange for a promise which won't be honored would be more counterproductive.

Why would implementing an UN resolution seeking to bring peace to the region be surrender? Why is this 'handing over everything', when handing over some land for - perceivably - peace is the best home for peace in the Middle East? How can you know it won't be honoured when the Arab League is unanimously backing it, knowing that Israel and the US' wrath if not kept would be devastating? You argue that it wouldn't be kept - in the longer statement above I tried to demonstrate how it is in the best interest of the Palestinians to keep it. Again - could you please point out where I'm wrong? I have studied the region in some depth as part of a postgraduate University course; I am genuinely interested to see if there is any better hope for peace, since the fairly unanimous belief of Political Science at this point is that a land-for-peace deal, under whatever details (and necessary, probably military, protection), is the only realistic hope for the Middle East, short of annihilation of either the entire Arab or Jewish races in the region.

I may of course be wrong, but the choices so far are a land-for-peace(and full recognition of borders and right of existence) deal, or a continued bloody stalemate costing the lives of primarily civilians on both sides. (With Palestinian casualties outnumbering Israeli casualties by roughly 3.5:1, I believe)

Opinions?

X.