Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
MrBubbles said:
in case you dont recall...hamas was part of a unified palestinian government at one time. then they started murdering people because they were part of other groups.
|
I didn't say it would be easy to enforce. Hamas is like any component of any body politic, if they dislike their situation to a certain extent, they will start to employ violence. This isn't at all to justify what Hamas does, but i am saying that the political dynamics would shift in a situation where Hamas was part of an internationally recognized sovereign Palestinian state. My assumption is that statehood is what most Palestinians will be satisfied with ultimately, and that if the radically anti-Israeli wings will persist on violence past that point, the Palestinian state will be better able and more willing to manage them (to get them to participate in a state at all will likely require some sort of disarmament, or that their combatants would form only a segment of the unified Palestinian military)
Statehood would vastly erode Hamas' position, so long as it was statehood under conditions that the majority of Palestinians would accept. If, say, statehood entails the state agreeing to continue to allow apartheid-style Israeli military checkpoints, then you would continue to see violence
The right peace will become self-reinforcing
|
That's a pretty big assumption. As is "statehood under conditions a majority of Palestinians would accept."
Such a deal might not be possible even if it was soley the 1967 with zero changes.
|
Do the majority of Israelis approve of aggressive settlement construction into ancient Samaria (West Bank)? A similar case would come into play here. If we included the Palestinian expatriates in the equation, perhaps the math would shift, but i'm betting they'll be willing to embrace the '67 boundaries as a fait accompli at this point, much as how most Israelis seem content with the fact that they aren't just going to be able to swamp the entire West Bank for themselves
